[arch-dev-public] GPL2 -> GPL3 license changes in packages
2007/11/8, Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org>:
Date: Wednesday, November 7, 2007 @ 20:23:48 Author: travis Path: /home/cvs-extra/extra/multimedia/audacious-player
Modified: PKGBUILD (1.13 -> 1.14)
upgpkg: audacious-player 1.4.0-1 Upstream update
+pkgver=1.4.0 +pkgrel=1 pkgdesc="A media player forked from BMP 0.9.7.1 - player component (no plugins)." arch=('i686' 'x86_64') url="http://audacious-media-player.org/" license=('GPL') -depends=('libmcs' 'libglade' 'unzip' 'libsamplerate') # Unzip for theme changing +depends=('libmcs' 'dbus-glib' 'libglade' 'unzip' 'libsamplerate') # Unzip for theme changing
The license has changed to GPL3. I'm posting this to public list to make a notice that we should now look at GPL2->GPL3 relicensing process that more and more FOSS projects are doing. Also it could be nice to have GPL changed to GPL2 when updating other packages to clearly state the version. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 11:52:53AM +0200, Roman Kyrylych wrote:
The license has changed to GPL3. I'm posting this to public list to make a notice that we should now look at GPL2->GPL3 relicensing process that more and more FOSS projects are doing. Also it could be nice to have GPL changed to GPL2 when updating other packages to clearly state the version.
Well, here's the thing... 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. In other words, there are a few things going on here. First, I don't know what you mean by "relicensing". If a version was never specified in the first place, then any version of the GPL applies, yes, even GPL1. Audacious hasn't changed its license, and they still do not specify a particular version, so we can leave its license entry as "GPL", since any version continues to be applicable. I suspect that for the majority of other programs out there, the same applies, most authors are too lazy to specify a version. The thing we need to watch for is those authors that *do* choose to specify a version at this point (which isn't surprising given the hubbub about gpl3). I hope this also explains why we should _not_ be changing GPL to GPL2 as we update old packages. The version that applies to them is *any* version of the GPL, unless explicity stated otherwise. -S
2007/11/8, Simo Leone <simo@archlinux.org>:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 11:52:53AM +0200, Roman Kyrylych wrote:
The license has changed to GPL3. I'm posting this to public list to make a notice that we should now look at GPL2->GPL3 relicensing process that more and more FOSS projects are doing. Also it could be nice to have GPL changed to GPL2 when updating other packages to clearly state the version.
Well, here's the thing... 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
In other words, there are a few things going on here. First, I don't know what you mean by "relicensing". If a version was never specified in the first place, then any version of the GPL applies, yes, even GPL1. Audacious hasn't changed its license, and they still do not specify a particular version, so we can leave its license entry as "GPL", since any version continues to be applicable.
It is GPL3 now. They announced it since 1.4.0 DR1 and now they COPYING file has: GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3, 29 June 2007
I suspect that for the majority of other programs out there, the same applies, most authors are too lazy to specify a version. The thing we need to watch for is those authors that *do* choose to specify a version at this point (which isn't surprising given the hubbub about gpl3).
I hope this also explains why we should _not_ be changing GPL to GPL2 as we update old packages. The version that applies to them is *any* version of the GPL, unless explicity stated otherwise.
Hm, valid point, so you propose to have GPL for GPL2+ (most software) and GPL2 for GPL2-only (e.g. Linux kernel)? Then I guess most PKGBUILDs that changed GPL to GPL2 should be fixed. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On Nov 8, 2007 6:08 AM, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
2007/11/8, Simo Leone <simo@archlinux.org>:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 11:52:53AM +0200, Roman Kyrylych wrote:
The license has changed to GPL3. I'm posting this to public list to make a notice that we should now look at GPL2->GPL3 relicensing process that more and more FOSS projects are doing. Also it could be nice to have GPL changed to GPL2 when updating other packages to clearly state the version.
Well, here's the thing... 9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
In other words, there are a few things going on here. First, I don't know what you mean by "relicensing". If a version was never specified in the first place, then any version of the GPL applies, yes, even GPL1. Audacious hasn't changed its license, and they still do not specify a particular version, so we can leave its license entry as "GPL", since any version continues to be applicable.
It is GPL3 now. They announced it since 1.4.0 DR1 and now they COPYING file has: GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3, 29 June 2007
I suspect that for the majority of other programs out there, the same applies, most authors are too lazy to specify a version. The thing we need to watch for is those authors that *do* choose to specify a version at this point (which isn't surprising given the hubbub about gpl3).
I hope this also explains why we should _not_ be changing GPL to GPL2 as we update old packages. The version that applies to them is *any* version of the GPL, unless explicity stated otherwise.
Hm, valid point, so you propose to have GPL for GPL2+ (most software) and GPL2 for GPL2-only (e.g. Linux kernel)? Then I guess most PKGBUILDs that changed GPL to GPL2 should be fixed.
That was my original intention when I updated the licenses package. Sorry if I didn't make that more clear on the list. We've always used GPL as a synonym for "GPL2 or later", so it didn't make sense for packages to have to change that. But something like the Linux kernel is GPL2 only, and newer projects are "GPL3 or later", which are the cases where the more specific GPL2 & GPL3 licenses should be used. -Dan
Thursday 08 November 2007, Roman Kyrylych wrote: | Hm, valid point, so you propose to have GPL for GPL2+ (most | software) and GPL2 for GPL2-only (e.g. Linux kernel)? | Then I guess most PKGBUILDs that changed GPL to GPL2 should be | fixed. to be more consistent, i would say: GPL1 -> GPL1 GPL2 -> GPL2 GPL3 -> GPL3 GPL -> all GPLs valid (synonyme for 'GPL1' 'GPL2' 'GPL3') at least i am tagging my pkgs like this - D -- .·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´ ° ° ° ° ° ° ><((((º> ° ° ° ° ° <º)))>< <º)))><
2007/11/8, Damir Perisa <damir.perisa@solnet.ch>:
Thursday 08 November 2007, Roman Kyrylych wrote: | Hm, valid point, so you propose to have GPL for GPL2+ (most | software) and GPL2 for GPL2-only (e.g. Linux kernel)? | Then I guess most PKGBUILDs that changed GPL to GPL2 should be | fixed.
to be more consistent, i would say:
GPL1 -> GPL1 GPL2 -> GPL2 GPL3 -> GPL3
GPL -> all GPLs valid (synonyme for 'GPL1' 'GPL2' 'GPL3')
at least i am tagging my pkgs like this
This doesn't work: 1) using GPL for both GPL2 and GPL3 is not good because they are different licenses. 2) GPL2 is "GPL2 or later" or "GPL2 only"? I like Dan's proposal: GPL -> GPL2 or later GPL2 - GPL2 only GPL3 - GPL3 or later Here "GPL2 or later" means a popular application of GPL2 to software with words "either version 2 of this license or (at your opinion) any later version". Where GPL2 only is like in Linux kernel - without "or (at your opinion) any later version", which is very different. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
Thursday 08 November 2007, Roman Kyrylych wrote: | GPL -> GPL2 or later how do you specify gpl1 gpl2 and gpl3 as valid ones? | GPL2 - GPL2 only | GPL3 - GPL3 or later this is inconsistent! if there will be a gpl4, you will be in trouble using this scheme, because you just left out the option for "GPL3 only" - D -- .·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´ ° ° ° ° ° ° ><((((º> ° ° ° ° ° <º)))>< <º)))><
2007/11/8, Damir Perisa <damir.perisa@solnet.ch>:
Thursday 08 November 2007, Roman Kyrylych wrote: | GPL -> GPL2 or later
how do you specify gpl1 gpl2 and gpl3 as valid ones?
| GPL2 - GPL2 only | GPL3 - GPL3 or later
this is inconsistent! if there will be a gpl4, you will be in trouble using this scheme, because you just left out the option for "GPL3 only"
GPL1 -> GPL1
I may not live so long to see a GPL4. :-P And by that time there will be another situation in Arch (yeah, I hope Arch will live so long :-P) that may require different solution. Please tell me which package from our repos is "GPL1 only" or "GPL1 or later". And how should we differentiate "GPL2 only" and "GPL2 or later"? Your scheme is worse, because of: practically doesn't exist in wild
GPL2 -> GPL2 "GPL2 only" or "GPL2 or later"? This is important difference. GPL3 -> GPL3 ok GPL -> all GPLs valid (synonyme for 'GPL1' 'GPL2' 'GPL3') I didn't see a single package with "any GPL version starting from 1" license.
Dan proposed a good solution for current situation. Most GPLed packages in our repos are 'GPL' and most of them are "GPL2 or later". "GPL2 only" are a small minority, so introducing 'GPL2' for looks good to me. Now "GPL3 or later" started to appear, and introducing 'GPL3' for them looks good too. Why don't make things practical instead of philosophical? ;-) -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On Nov 8, 2007 9:21 AM, Damir Perisa <damir.perisa@solnet.ch> wrote:
Thursday 08 November 2007, Roman Kyrylych wrote: | GPL -> GPL2 or later
how do you specify gpl1 gpl2 and gpl3 as valid ones?
| GPL2 - GPL2 only | GPL3 - GPL3 or later
this is inconsistent! if there will be a gpl4, you will be in trouble using this scheme, because you just left out the option for "GPL3 only"
Why on earth are we bikeshedding everything these days? We won't have to worry about a GPL4 for at least 5 years... And when that time comes, GPL3 will switch to being *just* GPL3, and GPL4 will be "GPL4 or later". -Dan
On Nov 8, 2007 9:39 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
Why on earth are we bikeshedding everything these days? We won't have to worry about a GPL4 for at least 5 years... And when that time comes, GPL3 will switch to being *just* GPL3, and GPL4 will be "GPL4 or later".
Agreed. Seeing as Dan is our resident license package guy (he did all the fixups and whatnot), I'm inclined to trust his judgment here. Lets go with what Dan proposed, which is the following: GPL means GPL2 or later GPL1 means GPL1 GPL2 means GPL2 GPL3 means GPL3 or later Is this correct Dan?
On Nov 8, 2007 1:24 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 8, 2007 9:39 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
Why on earth are we bikeshedding everything these days? We won't have to worry about a GPL4 for at least 5 years... And when that time comes, GPL3 will switch to being *just* GPL3, and GPL4 will be "GPL4 or later".
Agreed. Seeing as Dan is our resident license package guy (he did all the fixups and whatnot), I'm inclined to trust his judgment here.
Lets go with what Dan proposed, which is the following:
GPL means GPL2 or later GPL1 means GPL1 GPL2 means GPL2 GPL3 means GPL3 or later
Is this correct Dan?
Yep. (We have no GPL1 packages that I know of either, I'm not sure why that ever even got brought into the mix) -Dan
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 02:14:58PM -0600, Dan McGee wrote:
Yep. (We have no GPL1 packages that I know of either, I'm not sure why that ever even got brought into the mix)
I just used it as an example.. since the gpl is worded where if a project doesn't specify a license, you can choose any version you want. *shrug*
participants (5)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Damir Perisa
-
Dan McGee
-
Roman Kyrylych
-
Simo Leone