FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-23-2010, 10:21 AM
Philipp ▄berbacher
 
Default Licenses, GPL3 only

Excerpts from Ronald van Haren's message of 2010-08-23 12:06:24 +0200:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Philipp <hollunder@lavabit.com> 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?
> >
>
> Since when is GPL4 released?
>
> Ronald

It isn't afaik, but that doesn't matter.
Both the GPL2 and GPL3 text contain something along the lines of:
", or (at your option) any later version."

You have to remove that to say it's GPL2 or GPL3 only.

Just because GPL4/5/6/.. doesn't exist yet it doesn't mean you can't
say that your program can't be redistributed using those licenses.

I'm a bit conservative in this case, I rather wait until a license
exists before I say that my program can be distributed using said
license, hence my program is GPL3 only.
--
Philipp

--
"Wir stehen selbst enttńuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu
und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
 
Old 08-23-2010, 10:36 AM
Ronald van Haren
 
Default Licenses, GPL3 only

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Philipp ▄berbacher
<hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Ronald van Haren's message of 2010-08-23 12:06:24 +0200:
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Philipp <hollunder@lavabit.com> 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?
>> >
>>
>> Since when is GPL4 released?
>>
>> Ronald
>
> It isn't afaik, but that doesn't matter.
> Both the GPL2 and GPL3 text contain something along the lines of:
> ", or (at your option) any later version."
>
> You have to remove that to say it's GPL2 or GPL3 only.
>
> Just because GPL4/5/6/.. doesn't exist yet it doesn't mean you can't
> say that your program can't be redistributed using those licenses.
>
> I'm a bit conservative in this case, I rather wait until a license
> exists before I say that my program can be distributed using said
> license, hence my program is GPL3 only.
> --

Well obviously, but GPL4 can be as far as 10 years away, if it will be
released at all. Until that time gpl3 or later is equal to gpl3 as
there is nothing later. I presume if gpl4 will be released a similar
transition can be made like was done after gpl3 was released. Most
likely gpl3 will become gpl3 only and... well we can discuss that when
the time is there.
It doesn't make much sense to do this now, it should have been done
when we introduced this scheme (maybe it even was, I don't recall) and
now we should just wait for when it needs fixing.
You can always file a bug if a package is distributed under the wrong license.

Ronald
 
Old 08-23-2010, 10:47 AM
Ray Rashif
 
Default Licenses, GPL3 only

On 23 August 2010 18:03, Philipp <hollunder@lavabit.com> 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?

I think what you're trying to say is that you should be allowed to use
a license and strictly forbid later versions from having an influence.
But I believe that's not how it works. The Linux kernel, IIRC, was
made GPL2 only when GPL3 was released.


--
GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
 
Old 08-23-2010, 10:59 AM
Nathan Wayde
 
Default Licenses, GPL3 only

On 23/08/10 11:03, Philipp wrote:

Hi,
I just looked up the GPL notation again.
Here's the relevant excerpt from the wiki:

[...]

How would you specify that a program is GPL3 only?

Regards,


Modify the license file/template to make it clear that it's GPL3 only
and then include it in the PKGBUILD as a custom license. It at least
avoid all ambiguities if nothing else.
 
Old 08-23-2010, 12:10 PM
Philipp ▄berbacher
 
Default Licenses, GPL3 only

Excerpts from Ronald van Haren's message of 2010-08-23 12:36:52 +0200:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Philipp ▄berbacher
> <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Ronald van Haren's message of 2010-08-23 12:06:24 +0200:
> >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Philipp <hollunder@lavabit.com> 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?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Since when is GPL4 released?
> >>
> >> Ronald
> >
> > It isn't afaik, but that doesn't matter.
> > Both the GPL2 and GPL3 text contain something along the lines of:
> > ", or (at your option) any later version."
> >
> > You have to remove that to say it's GPL2 or GPL3 only.
> >
> > Just because GPL4/5/6/.. doesn't exist yet it doesn't mean you can't
> > say that your program can't be redistributed using those licenses.
> >
> > I'm a bit conservative in this case, I rather wait until a license
> > exists before I say that my program can be distributed using said
> > license, hence my program is GPL3 only.
> > --
>
> Well obviously, but GPL4 can be as far as 10 years away, if it will be
> released at all. Until that time gpl3 or later is equal to gpl3 as
> there is nothing later. I presume if gpl4 will be released a similar
> transition can be made like was done after gpl3 was released. Most
> likely gpl3 will become gpl3 only and... well we can discuss that when
> the time is there.

Well, yes, for Arch it makes no difference at this time, for my program
it does make a difference, so yeah, it's a correctness thing.

> It doesn't make much sense to do this now, it should have been done
> when we introduced this scheme (maybe it even was, I don't recall) and
> now we should just wait for when it needs fixing.
> You can always file a bug if a package is distributed under the wrong license.
>
> Ronald

Yep, it very much looks like the 'or later' wasn't considered when the
scheme was introduced, else it would have been GPL2 and GPL2+ or
something right from the start, not the confusing mess it is now.
--
Philipp

--
"Wir stehen selbst enttńuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu
und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
 
Old 08-23-2010, 12:15 PM
Philipp ▄berbacher
 
Default Licenses, GPL3 only

Excerpts from Ray Rashif's message of 2010-08-23 12:47:44 +0200:
> On 23 August 2010 18:03, Philipp <hollunder@lavabit.com> 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?
>
> I think what you're trying to say is that you should be allowed to use
> a license and strictly forbid later versions from having an influence.
> But I believe that's not how it works.

That's how it works now. The default text reads
"or, at your option, any later version". Removing that is the way to
make it 'only this version'.

> The Linux kernel, IIRC, was made GPL2 only when GPL3 was released.

That may be, I don't know. If that was the case, then any version up to
that point could be used with any GPL version, be it 3, 4, 5 ...
--
Philipp

--
"Wir stehen selbst enttńuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu
und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
 
Old 08-23-2010, 12:16 PM
Philipp ▄berbacher
 
Default Licenses, GPL3 only

Excerpts from Nathan Wayde's message of 2010-08-23 12:59:23 +0200:
> On 23/08/10 11:03, Philipp wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I just looked up the GPL notation again.
> > Here's the relevant excerpt from the wiki:
> [...]
> > How would you specify that a program is GPL3 only?
> >
> > Regards,
>
> Modify the license file/template to make it clear that it's GPL3 only
> and then include it in the PKGBUILD as a custom license. It at least
> avoid all ambiguities if nothing else.

Yep, thanks. I believe this is indeed the only correct way to do it
until Arch has a license scheme that takes the possibility into account.
--
Philipp

--
"Wir stehen selbst enttńuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu
und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
 
Old 08-23-2010, 12:20 PM
Roberto Alsina
 
Default Licenses, GPL3 only

On Monday 23 August 2010 09:15:05 Philipp ▄berbacher wrote:
> That's how it works now. The default text reads
> "or, at your option, any later version". Removing that is the way to
> make it 'only this version'.

No, that is not correct.

What decides what version of the GPL covers your code is what you put in the
README or in the source files themselves.

If you put there "Licensed under the GPLv2" it's v2 only, no matter what the
COPYING file itself says, because that's just an explanation on how to license
your code.
 
Old 08-23-2010, 12:47 PM
Magnus Therning
 
Default Licenses, GPL3 only

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 13:15, Philipp ├ťberbacher <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Ray Rashif's message of 2010-08-23 12:47:44 +0200:
[...]
>> The Linux kernel, IIRC, was made GPL2 only when GPL3 was released.
>
> That may be, I don't know. If that was the case, then any version up to that
> point could be used with any GPL version, be it 3, 4, 5 ...

AFAIK Linux has been GPLv2 only since version 2.4.0, i.e. from January 4th
2001. Work on GPLv3 didn't start until late 2005.

Personally I think it's only prudent to know *exactly* what license SW I write
is released under. So releasing under GPLv3 only before GPLv4 is released
makes sense; I also think that applying licenses retroactively is troublesome,
so it's worth being specific from the beginning.

OTOH it doesn't bother me at all that Arch's packaging system currently lacks
a way of accurately specifying the license for some software. I think it's
very little chance of that ever counting for anything in court. As long as
upstream provide clear information the Arch package can say pretty much
anything.

/M

--
Magnus Therning┬* ┬* ┬* ┬* ┬* ┬* ┬* ┬* ┬* ┬* ┬* ┬* (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4)
magnus´╝*therning´╝Äorg┬* ┬* ┬* ┬* ┬* Jabber: magnus´╝*therning´╝Äorg
http://therning.org/magnus┬* ┬* ┬* ┬*┬* identi.ca|twitter: magthe
 
Old 08-23-2010, 12:59 PM
Philipp ▄berbacher
 
Default Licenses, GPL3 only

Excerpts from Magnus Therning's message of 2010-08-23 14:47:32 +0200:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 13:15, Philipp ▄berbacher <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Ray Rashif's message of 2010-08-23 12:47:44 +0200:
> [...]
> >> The Linux kernel, IIRC, was made GPL2 only when GPL3 was released.
> >
> > That may be, I don't know. If that was the case, then any version up to that
> > point could be used with any GPL version, be it 3, 4, 5 ...
>
> AFAIK Linux has been GPLv2 only since version 2.4.0, i.e. from January 4th
> 2001. Work on GPLv3 didn't start until late 2005.
>
> Personally I think it's only prudent to know *exactly* what license SW I write
> is released under. So releasing under GPLv3 only before GPLv4 is released
> makes sense; I also think that applying licenses retroactively is troublesome,
> so it's worth being specific from the beginning.
>
> OTOH it doesn't bother me at all that Arch's packaging system currently lacks
> a way of accurately specifying the license for some software. I think it's
> very little chance of that ever counting for anything in court. As long as
> upstream provide clear information the Arch package can say pretty much
> anything.
>
> /M

I also doubt it has legal significance, but it would be good if the
information we provide was accurate. I believe pacman still can't
search by license, so it doesn't matter that much.

Spreading inaccurate information is just annoying.
One example I ran into a couple of times:
A package description said: "provides <functinality> for GNOME" when it
was in reality a gtk program without gnome dependencies. It also swings
the other way around, but less often.
Point being: accurate information helps the user, inaccurate information
can be troublesome.
--
Philipp

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:05 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ę2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org