[arch-dev-public] GPL v3
Since some software we are going to package soon will be released under GPL v3 instead of GPL v2 or later, should we add this license as a separate one named "GPLv3" in the licenses package and begin using this in the license field? This seems like the easiest solution to me, rather than go back and change every occurrence of GPL to GPLv2. Thoughts? This isn't a very extreme change, but something that we need to consider and I didn't want to make the change without a bit of feedback first. -Dan
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 12:02:53AM -0400, Dan McGee wrote:
Since some software we are going to package soon will be released under GPL v3 instead of GPL v2 or later, should we add this license as a separate one named "GPLv3" in the licenses package and begin using this in the license field? This seems like the easiest solution to me, rather than go back and change every occurrence of GPL to GPLv2.
Thoughts? This isn't a very extreme change, but something that we need to consider and I didn't want to make the change without a bit of feedback first.
That was the original plan. I believe they wanted to call it GPL3 though, not GPLv3 ;o) Jason
On 7/11/07, Jason Chu <jason@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 12:02:53AM -0400, Dan McGee wrote:
Since some software we are going to package soon will be released under GPL v3 instead of GPL v2 or later, should we add this license as a separate one named "GPLv3" in the licenses package and begin using this in the license field? This seems like the easiest solution to me, rather than go back and change every occurrence of GPL to GPLv2.
Thoughts? This isn't a very extreme change, but something that we need to consider and I didn't want to make the change without a bit of feedback first.
That was the original plan. I believe they wanted to call it GPL3 though, not GPLv3 ;o)
Jason
Jason, can you send me a link to that if it was discussed somewhere? And how about this for some licenses stuff: license=('GPL') - licensed under GPL version 2 or later license=('GPL2') - licensed under GPL version 2 only license=('GPL3') - licensed under GPL version 3 or later licenses package: licenses/common/GPL/license.txt licenses/common/GPL3/license.txt licenses/common/GPL2/ -> licenses/common/GPL/ ... -Dan
2007/7/11, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:
And how about this for some licenses stuff: license=('GPL') - licensed under GPL version 2 or later license=('GPL2') - licensed under GPL version 2 only license=('GPL3') - licensed under GPL version 3 or later
licenses package: licenses/common/GPL/license.txt licenses/common/GPL3/license.txt licenses/common/GPL2/ -> licenses/common/GPL/ ...
+1 That's exactly what I've thought about. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On 7/11/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
2007/7/11, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:
And how about this for some licenses stuff: license=('GPL') - licensed under GPL version 2 or later license=('GPL2') - licensed under GPL version 2 only license=('GPL3') - licensed under GPL version 3 or later
licenses package: licenses/common/GPL/license.txt licenses/common/GPL3/license.txt licenses/common/GPL2/ -> licenses/common/GPL/ ...
+1 That's exactly what I've thought about.
Done. Let me know if there are any problems. Also killed a few bugs while I was at it: 5637, 6039, 7172 If anyone likes playing with the wiki, this page needs some updates: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Licenses And we should ensure that our packages are putting licenses in /usr/share/licenses/<pkgname>, not /usr/share/licenses/custom/<pkgname>, as noted here: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5623 -Dan
Dan McGee schrieb:
Since some software we are going to package soon will be released under GPL v3 instead of GPL v2 or later, should we add this license as a separate one named "GPLv3" in the licenses package and begin using this in the license field? This seems like the easiest solution to me, rather than go back and change every occurrence of GPL to GPLv2.
Thoughts? This isn't a very extreme change, but something that we need to consider and I didn't want to make the change without a bit of feedback first.
I have some thoughts about licenses in archlinux in general: 1) makepkg should ensure that the license is either in the licenses package or shipped by the package itself. Otherwise, it should refuse to build the package or at least warn the user. This would also force us to make more strict rules about the location and filenames of licenses. 2) pacman should have a -Q --license option to view the license of a package.
On 7/12/07, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Dan McGee schrieb:
Since some software we are going to package soon will be released under GPL v3 instead of GPL v2 or later, should we add this license as a separate one named "GPLv3" in the licenses package and begin using this in the license field? This seems like the easiest solution to me, rather than go back and change every occurrence of GPL to GPLv2.
Thoughts? This isn't a very extreme change, but something that we need to consider and I didn't want to make the change without a bit of feedback first.
I have some thoughts about licenses in archlinux in general:
1) makepkg should ensure that the license is either in the licenses package or shipped by the package itself. Otherwise, it should refuse to build the package or at least warn the user. This would also force us to make more strict rules about the location and filenames of licenses.
This might start to get complicated, that is for sure. I also dislike making any additions to makepkg that are as Arch Linux specific as this one would probably be. Although it sounds unbelievable, makepkg is used by others too.
2) pacman should have a -Q --license option to view the license of a package.
pacman -Qi <package> | grep License | awk '{print $3 }' gets the job done for me. Obviously not the prettiest, but this seems like feature bloat to add this. -Dan
Dan McGee schrieb:
2) pacman should have a -Q --license option to view the license of a package.
pacman -Qi <package> | grep License | awk '{print $3 }' gets the job done for me. Obviously not the prettiest, but this seems like feature bloat to add this.
No, it should actually show the license itself in less, not just the license name.
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 00:20 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Dan McGee schrieb:
2) pacman should have a -Q --license option to view the license of a package.
pacman -Qi <package> | grep License | awk '{print $3 }' gets the job done for me. Obviously not the prettiest, but this seems like feature bloat to add this.
No, it should actually show the license itself in less, not just the license name.
Extend it with a check for custom, then grab the license file from /usr/share/licences. Think all of this can be implemented with 5 lines of bash code.
Jan de Groot schrieb:
Extend it with a check for custom, then grab the license file from /usr/share/licences. Think all of this can be implemented with 5 lines of bash code.
Right now, we can't do that because a package may have put the license anywhere or specify an invalid license. And the point is not that I can view licenses on my system, but that they are easily available to any user. Writing a bash script or looking it up by hand is not what I call "easily available". What is the license field worth if we don't associate it with a specific license file?
participants (5)
-
Dan McGee
-
Jan de Groot
-
Jason Chu
-
Roman Kyrylych
-
Thomas Bächler