Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Gentoo Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/gentoo-development/)
-   -   Documentation licenses and license_groups (http://www.linux-archive.org/gentoo-development/304719-documentation-licenses-license_groups.html)

Vincent Launchbury 01-05-2010 04:15 PM

Documentation licenses and license_groups
 
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Shouldn't all licenses listed at <http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/>
> (unless marked as non-free) be added to FSF-APPROVED? These would be
> the following:

Great idea, that would remove a lot of hassle.

Also, I was wondering about LGPL-2 and GPL-1, surely they're
GPL-compatible? The suggested license header in
/usr/portage/licenses/GPL-1 contains "either version 1, or (at your
option) any later version." The LGPL-2 suggests 2 or later also. It's
strange that the FSF doesn't mention them.

Either way, the groups should definitely be expanded.

Duncan 01-05-2010 05:07 PM

Documentation licenses and license_groups
 
Vincent Launchbury posted on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:15:10 -0500 as excerpted:

> Also, I was wondering about LGPL-2 and GPL-1, surely they're
> GPL-compatible? The suggested license header in
> /usr/portage/licenses/GPL-1 contains "either version 1, or (at your
> option) any later version." The LGPL-2 suggests 2 or later also. It's
> strange that the FSF doesn't mention them.

The FSF "or later version" clauses are generally optional, and GPL-1 is
not considered free software, AFAIK. Couple that with the fact that
Gentoo's license settings don't distinguish between the licenses with the
"or later version" clause and those without, and GPLv1 licensed packages,
regardless of whether they have the "or later version" clause or not,
cannot be added to the FSF-approved list, because some may NOT have that
clause, and Gentoo doesn't make the distinction.

Periodically there's talk of adding "+" versions of at least the FSF
licenses, but while it would probably be quite a good thing, it'd be a
LOT of VERY boring work poring thru all those packages and either
updating to the + version, or leaving comments in each one saying they'd
been checked already. When people realize the work involved, talk
quickly dies, as there are always other more pressing projects to work
on, bugs to fix, etc.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman

Ulrich Mueller 01-05-2010 05:10 PM

Documentation licenses and license_groups
 
>>>>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Vincent Launchbury wrote:

> Also, I was wondering about LGPL-2 and GPL-1, surely they're
> GPL-compatible? The suggested license header in
> /usr/portage/licenses/GPL-1 contains "either version 1, or (at your
> option) any later version." The LGPL-2 suggests 2 or later also. It's
> strange that the FSF doesn't mention them.

It would be strange if the GPL-1 wasn't GPL-compatible.

> Either way, the groups should definitely be expanded.

I just went though a recent stage3. We would need the following
licenses in addition to @FSF-APPROVED and @OSI-APPROVED to cover all
packages in it:

BZIP2
CRACKLIB
FLEX
freedist
LGPL-2
libgcc (add-on clause for GPL-2)
libstdc++ (add-on clause for GPL-2)
PAM (identical to "|| ( BSD GPL-2 )"?)
popt (identical to MIT)
SMAIL
tcp_wrappers_license

They all look like free software licenses to me (but IANAL), with
the exception of "freedist" which only says "Freely Distributable".
It is used by two packages in stage3, namely sys-apps/man-pages and
sys-apps/man-pages-posix.

Ulrich

Ulrich Mueller 01-05-2010 07:31 PM

Documentation licenses and license_groups
 
>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Duncan wrote:

> [...] and GPL-1 is not considered free software, AFAIK.

Why would that be? There are fairly small changes from GPL-1 to GPL-2.
The only important one is the addition of the "Liberty or Death" [1]
clause (section 7 of the GPL-2).

Ulrich

[1] <http://fsfe.org/projects/gplv3/fisl-rms-transcript.en.html#liberty-or-death>

Duncan 01-05-2010 10:54 PM

Documentation licenses and license_groups
 
Ulrich Mueller posted on Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:31:09 +0100 as excerpted:

>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Duncan wrote:
>
>> [...] and GPL-1 is not considered free software, AFAIK.
>
> Why would that be? There are fairly small changes from GPL-1 to GPL-2.
> The only important one is the addition of the "Liberty or Death" [1]
> clause (section 7 of the GPL-2).

Quickly checking wikipedia (without verifying further), I'm probably
thinking about a different license, but I had it in my head that GPLv1
had a "no commercial use" clause (or allowed it), and that is why it was
no longer considered free software, as it impinged on the user's freedom
to use as they wish. Pending further research, therefore, I'll just say
I seem to have been mistaken.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman

Vincent Launchbury 01-06-2010 02:00 AM

Documentation licenses and license_groups
 
Duncan wrote:
> Quickly checking wikipedia (without verifying further), I'm probably
> thinking about a different license, but I had it in my head that GPLv1
> had a "no commercial use" clause (or allowed it), and that is why it
> was no longer considered free software, as it impinged on the user's
> freedom to use as they wish. Pending further research, therefore,
> I'll just say I seem to have been mistaken.

Looking in section 2b, it mentions that you must "[cause work containing
GPL'd code..] to be licensed at no charge to all third parties... "
(excluding warranty protection). This is most probably the issue, that
you can't sell it. I hadn't realized this before.

> The FSF "or later version" clauses are generally optional

But isn't this a problem with GPL-2 and 3 also? The term GPL-compatible
is too vague--which version is it referring to? For example, see
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ again:

Please note that GPLv2 is, by itself, not compatible with GPLv3.
However, most software released under GPLv2 allows you to use the
terms of later versions of the GPL as well.

So doesn't it already assume that GPL-2 code contains the 'later
version' option?

But in any case GPL-1 is probably not suitable for either license group,
if theres a case where it can't be sold.

I still support Ulrich's suggestions though.

Jeroen Roovers 01-06-2010 03:34 AM

Documentation licenses and license_groups
 
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:00:57 -0500
Vincent Launchbury <vincent@doublecreations.com> wrote:

> But isn't this a problem with GPL-2 and 3 also? The term
> GPL-compatible is too vague--which version is it referring to? For
> example, see http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ again:
>
> Please note that GPLv2 is, by itself, not compatible with GPLv3.
> However, most software released under GPLv2 allows you to use the
> terms of later versions of the GPL as well.
>
> So doesn't it already assume that GPL-2 code contains the 'later
> version' option?

No, it just says most GPL-2 software was released with the "version 2 or
later" clause, as in "This software is released under the GPL version 2
or later".

That's a promise that any later version will do for /this/ software, not
in any way a promise that whatever was released as GPL-2 can be
redistributed as GPL-3.


jer

Jeroen Roovers 01-06-2010 03:39 AM

Documentation licenses and license_groups
 
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:00:57 -0500
Vincent Launchbury <vincent@doublecreations.com> wrote:

> Duncan wrote:
> > Quickly checking wikipedia (without verifying further), I'm probably
> > thinking about a different license, but I had it in my head that
> > GPLv1 had a "no commercial use" clause (or allowed it), and that is
> > why it was no longer considered free software, as it impinged on
> > the user's freedom to use as they wish. Pending further research,
> > therefore, I'll just say I seem to have been mistaken.
>
> Looking in section 2b, it mentions that you must "[cause work
> containing GPL'd code..] to be licensed at no charge to all third
> parties... " (excluding warranty protection). This is most probably
> the issue, that you can't sell it. I hadn't realized this before.

Of course you can sell the software (as long as you distribute the
[perhaps] derivative sources), you just can't /license/ it for money.

Please look into the legal verbiage - you seem incredibly confused as
to what it all means and you're confusing the matter even more for
others.


jer

Vincent Launchbury 01-06-2010 04:08 AM

Documentation licenses and license_groups
 
Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> No, it just says most GPL-2 software was released with the "version 2 or
> later" clause, as in "This software is released under the GPL version 2
> or later".
>
> That's a promise that any later version will do for /this/ software, not
> in any way a promise that whatever was released as GPL-2 can be
> redistributed as GPL-3.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant, doesn't the
GPL-COMPATIBLE license group assume that GPl-2 is v2+? If an ebuild is
listed as GPL-2, but it's version 2 only, then surely it isn't
GPL-compatible, because it's incompatible with GPL-3.

> Of course you can sell the software (as long as you distribute the [perhaps]
>derivative sources), you just can't /license/ it for money.

>Please look into the legal verbiage - you seem incredibly confused as to what
>it all means and you're confusing the matter even more for others.

Thanks for clearing that up. If that's the case, then isn't GPL-1 in the
same boat as GPL-2? As they are both incompatible with GPL-3 if the "or
any later version" clause isn't included.

Ulrich Mueller 01-06-2010 04:45 AM

Documentation licenses and license_groups
 
>>>>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Vincent Launchbury wrote:

[about GPL-1 being non-free]

> Looking in section 2b, it mentions that you must "[cause work
> containing GPL'd code..] to be licensed at no charge to all third
> parties... " (excluding warranty protection). This is most probably
> the issue, that you can't sell it. I hadn't realized this before.

The same section 2b exists in GPL-2:

"[...] to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License."

Ulrich


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:44 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.