On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:18:30 +0200
Philipp Überbacher <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:

> Besides that, I think it's future proof.
> One issue though is that the meaning of:
> ('GPL2' 'GPL3')
> isn't the same as:
> 'GPL2 or later'
> It only is practically the same because there's nothing beyond GPL3
> yet.

Just out of curiosity...

Supposed, there is a GPL4 around at some time in the future.
Now, if I receive some software under the terms of "GPL2 or later",
would it be in my right, to redistribute said software under "GPL3
only" as opposed to "GPL3 or later"?

Philipp Überbacher wrote:

> It would be nice to distinguish between GPLvN only and GPLvN or later
> for any N. The question is which way is optimal.

GPL2
GPL2-only
GPL3
GPL3-only
etc

Wouldn't that both be clear and avoid sweeping changes as most things are
licensed under the standard "this version or later" license?

Also, if it's a pita to change now, it will only be a bigger pita later when it
becomes an actual problem.

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
> Philipp Überbacher wrote:
>
>> It would be nice to distinguish between GPLvN only and GPLvN or later
>> for any N. The question is which way is optimal.
>
> GPL2
> GPL2-only
> GPL3
> GPL3-only
> etc
>
> Wouldn't that both be clear and avoid sweeping changes as most things are
> licensed under the standard "this version or later" license?
>

clear yes, avoid sweeping changes no.

most packages are currently gpl2 or later, hence called 'GPL'. These
need to be changes to GPL2. packages which currently are GPL2 need to
be converted to GPL2-only.
You can of course keep both GPL2 and GPL for gpl2 or later for now.

Ronald

Excerpts from Ronald van Haren's message of 2010-08-26 20:10:00 +0200:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
> > Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> >
> >> It would be nice to distinguish between GPLvN only and GPLvN or later
> >> for any N. The question is which way is optimal.
> >
> > GPL2
> > GPL2-only
> > GPL3
> > GPL3-only
> > etc
> >
> > Wouldn't that both be clear and avoid sweeping changes as most things are
> > licensed under the standard "this version or later" license?
> >
>
> clear yes, avoid sweeping changes no.
>
> most packages are currently gpl2 or later, hence called 'GPL'. These
> need to be changes to GPL2. packages which currently are GPL2 need to
> be converted to GPL2-only.
> You can of course keep both GPL2 and GPL for gpl2 or later for now.
>
> Ronald

I also wonder about the GPLv1/any case. It's nothing that should be used
anymore, but technically all the perl stuff would need 'GPLv1 or later'
which is the same as 'GPL any'.
--
Philipp

--
"Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu
und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan

On Thursday 26 August 2010 15:38:43 Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> Excerpts from Ronald van Haren's message of 2010-08-26 20:10:00 +0200:
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
> > > Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> > >> It would be nice to distinguish between GPLvN only and GPLvN or later
> > >> for any N. The question is which way is optimal.
> > >
> > > GPL2
> > > GPL2-only
> > > GPL3
> > > GPL3-only
> > > etc
> > >
> > > Wouldn't that both be clear and avoid sweeping changes as most things
> > > are licensed under the standard "this version or later" license?
> >
> >
> >
> > clear yes, avoid sweeping changes no.
> >
> >
> >
> > most packages are currently gpl2 or later, hence called 'GPL'. These
> > need to be changes to GPL2. packages which currently are GPL2 need to
> > be converted to GPL2-only.
> > You can of course keep both GPL2 and GPL for gpl2 or later for now.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ronald
>
> I also wonder about the GPLv1/any case. It's nothing that should be used
> anymore, but technically all the perl stuff would need 'GPLv1 or later'
> which is the same as 'GPL any'.

Just in case: if a package is licensed under "GPLvX and later" and Arch says
it's GPLvY (with Y >= X) and doesn't say anything about "or later", that's not
a problem, for Arch, really, it will be using one of the allowed licenses in
any case.

It may be a problem if it ends combining it with another program which
requires one of the "later" GPLs, though.

Excerpts from Alexander Duscheleit's message of 2010-08-26 19:57:35 +0200:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:18:30 +0200
> Philipp Überbacher <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
>
> > Besides that, I think it's future proof.
> > One issue though is that the meaning of:
> > ('GPL2' 'GPL3')
> > isn't the same as:
> > 'GPL2 or later'
> > It only is practically the same because there's nothing beyond GPL3
> > yet.
>
> Just out of curiosity...
>
> Supposed, there is a GPL4 around at some time in the future.
> Now, if I receive some software under the terms of "GPL2 or later",
> would it be in my right, to redistribute said software under "GPL3
> only" as opposed to "GPL3 or later"?

That's a good question, and my guess is 'no', because you're restricting
the ones you give the program to. But technically you also limit the
choice by not allowing GPLv2 anymore, so I really don't know. IANAL

--
Philipp

--
"Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu
und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan

On Thu 26 Aug 2010 13:12 +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu 26 Aug 2010 12:48 +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Mon 23 Aug 2010 12:03 +0200, Philipp wrote:
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >> I just looked up the GPL notation again.
> >> >> Here's the relevant excerpt from the wiki:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards
> >> >>
> >> >> ..
> >> >> The (L)GPL has many versions and permutations of those versions.
> >> >> For (L)GPL software, the convention is:
> >> >>
> >> >> * * * (L)GPL - (L)GPLv2 or any later version
> >> >> * * * (L)GPL2 - (L)GPL2 only
> >> >> * * * (L)GPL3 - (L)GPL3 or any later version
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Now besides that this is obviously confusing there's another problem.
> >> >> How would you specify that a program is GPL3 only?
> >> >
> >> > Here's my proposed scheme:
> >> > GPL *= Any GPL license
> >> > GPL1 = GPL1 only
> >> > GPL2 = GPL2 only
> >> > GPL3 = GPL3 only
> >> >
> >> > If you want to use 2 and 3, just list them both in the licenses array.
> >> > Future proof.
> >> >
> >> I've never seen an applications under the 'any GPL" license, it's
> >> always GPL2 or higher....
> >
> > It exists as part of the license at any rate.
> >
> >> either way, it is never future proof. What for some reason people
> >> start to switch licenses to GPL3 or higher if/when GPL4 is
> >> removed...there can always be something.
> >
> > I'm very confused. Can you rephrase that?
> >
> >
>
> sure... I'm doing five things at once so I didn't think much about
> what I was saying..
>
> either way, most licenses say 'licensed under the GNU General Public
> License version 2 or, at your option any later version'.
>
> In our current naming scheme this is what we call 'GPL', in your
> scheme I'm not sure how you would call it. Which was my first point.
>
> My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring.
> Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or
> later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are
> lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to
> create a naming scheme which will fit all.
>
> The way we currently have it seems to fit all current GPL packages.
> IMO GPL3 is still GPL3 only as there is no later GPL license. Correct
> me if I'm wrong but I think all GPL3 only packages in our repos have
> just GPL3 in the license array?

What really concerns us as distributors is what makes things clear and
simple. We can always use and distribute under the first available
license. Really there is no need for us to worry about 'any later
version' of a license. That's only something that app developers might
want to pay attention to if they're linking, forking or borrowing code.

In that case they bloody well read the documentation and not blame Arch
for incomplete (but still correct) license information.

On Thursday 26 August 2010 at 18:57 Alexander Duscheleit wrote:
> Philipp Überbacher <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
> > Besides that, I think it's future proof.
> > One issue though is that the meaning of:
> > ('GPL2' 'GPL3')
> > isn't the same as:
> > 'GPL2 or later'
> > It only is practically the same because there's nothing beyond GPL3
> > yet.
>
> Just out of curiosity...
>
> Supposed, there is a GPL4 around at some time in the future.
> Now, if I receive some software under the terms of "GPL2 or later",
> would it be in my right, to redistribute said software under "GPL3
> only" as opposed to "GPL3 or later"?

Yes, this is your right. Just as you can take some software released under
"GPL2 or at your option, any later version" and redistribute it under GPL3
only. This is "your option". You do not have the pass the option on, since
that doesn't form part of the copyleft.

Of course, someone else can redistribute the original under GPL2 only, GPL4
only, GPL2 "or later" or GPL3 "or later". That's their option :-)

HTH,

Pete.

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:22:03 +0100
Peter Lewis <pete@muddygoat.org> wrote:

> On Thursday 26 August 2010 at 18:57 Alexander Duscheleit wrote:
> > Philipp Überbacher <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
> > > Besides that, I think it's future proof.
> > > One issue though is that the meaning of:
> > > ('GPL2' 'GPL3')
> > > isn't the same as:
> > > 'GPL2 or later'
> > > It only is practically the same because there's nothing beyond
> > > GPL3 yet.
> >
> > Just out of curiosity...
> >
> > Supposed, there is a GPL4 around at some time in the future.
> > Now, if I receive some software under the terms of "GPL2 or later",
> > would it be in my right, to redistribute said software under "GPL3
> > only" as opposed to "GPL3 or later"?
>
> Yes, this is your right. Just as you can take some software released
> under "GPL2 or at your option, any later version" and redistribute it
> under GPL3 only. This is "your option". You do not have the pass the
> option on, since that doesn't form part of the copyleft.
>
> Of course, someone else can redistribute the original under GPL2
> only, GPL4 only, GPL2 "or later" or GPL3 "or later". That's their
> option :-)
>
That was my understanding, too. :-)

It gets more interesting, when I make changes to my redistributed
software, though.
If i understand correctly, if upstream is GPL2+ and my version is GLP3
only, I effectively either cut upstream out from my changes or force
them to upgrade their version to GPL3 only (not even GPL3+).
This looks to me, like I could violate the spirit of the GPL through the
GPL itself.
(Poaching in lawyers waters as a layman sure is fun :-D.)

Jinks

Excerpts from Alexander Duscheleit's message of 2010-08-27 21:31:29 +0200:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:22:03 +0100
> Peter Lewis <pete@muddygoat.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 26 August 2010 at 18:57 Alexander Duscheleit wrote:
> > > Philipp Überbacher <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
> > > > Besides that, I think it's future proof.
> > > > One issue though is that the meaning of:
> > > > ('GPL2' 'GPL3')
> > > > isn't the same as:
> > > > 'GPL2 or later'
> > > > It only is practically the same because there's nothing beyond
> > > > GPL3 yet.
> > >
> > > Just out of curiosity...
> > >
> > > Supposed, there is a GPL4 around at some time in the future.
> > > Now, if I receive some software under the terms of "GPL2 or later",
> > > would it be in my right, to redistribute said software under "GPL3
> > > only" as opposed to "GPL3 or later"?
> >
> > Yes, this is your right. Just as you can take some software released
> > under "GPL2 or at your option, any later version" and redistribute it
> > under GPL3 only. This is "your option". You do not have the pass the
> > option on, since that doesn't form part of the copyleft.
> >
> > Of course, someone else can redistribute the original under GPL2
> > only, GPL4 only, GPL2 "or later" or GPL3 "or later". That's their
> > option :-)
> >
> That was my understanding, too. :-)
>
> It gets more interesting, when I make changes to my redistributed
> software, though.
> If i understand correctly, if upstream is GPL2+ and my version is GLP3
> only, I effectively either cut upstream out from my changes or force
> them to upgrade their version to GPL3 only (not even GPL3+).
> This looks to me, like I could violate the spirit of the GPL through the
> GPL itself.
> (Poaching in lawyers waters as a layman sure is fun :-D.)
>
> Jinks

Someone in #fsf on freenode might be able to answer you. I guess the
answer would be: "optimally there would be no such thing as GPLvN only".
--
Philipp

--
"Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu
und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan