Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] licenses: GPL permutations

Loui

30 Mar 2008 30 Mar '08

2:46 p.m.

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:20:37 +0300 "Roman Kyrylych" wrote:

2008/3/30, Paul Mattal :

...
What is the right way to list all the various contortions you can now have of GPL in the license array? There's:

GPL - any version of GPL GPL2 - only version 2 GPL2+ - version 2 or later GPL3 - version 3 only GPL3+ - version 3 or later

These are all substantively different (except the last two.. for now) so how do we express these? Should we actually create common licenses GPL2+ and GPL3+ which reference the other two, and make GPL reference them all? Do we need a GPL1 and GPL1+?

This issue was discussed in past (I'm lazy to search for exact thread(s), sorry). The current scheme is: GPL - GPLv2 "or, at your opinion, any later version" GPL2 - GPL2 only (e.g. Linux kernel) GPL3 - GPL3 "or, at your opinion, any later version" I don't know of a single project with GPLv1 or GPLv3-only license.

I don't like all these "this version or later" boondongles. Why don't we just keep things KISS and let people explicitly state what licenses are permissable. GPL1, GPL2, GPL3. Put one, or more of those in your licenses array and it's crystal clear what you mean.

Show replies by date

Roman Kyrylych

30 Mar 30 Mar

2:58 p.m.

New subject: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] licenses: GPL permutations

2008/3/30, Loui :

...

I don't like all these "this version or later" boondongles. Why don't we just keep things KISS and let people explicitly state what licenses are permissable. GPL1, GPL2, GPL3. Put one, or more of those in your licenses array and it's crystal clear what you mean.

GPL2 "or, at your opinion, any later version" is not the same as GPL2 only + GPL3 or later. ;) -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

Loui

3:21 p.m.

New subject: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] licenses: GPL permutations

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:58:20 +0300 "Roman Kyrylych" wrote:

...

2008/3/30, Loui :

...
I don't like all these "this version or later" boondongles. Why don't we just keep things KISS and let people explicitly state what licenses are permissable. GPL1, GPL2, GPL3. Put one, or more of those in your licenses array and it's crystal clear what you mean.

GPL2 "or, at your opinion, any later version" is not the same as GPL2 only + GPL3 or later. ;)

Can you explain why they are not the same? I don't quite understand why that doesn't work. Thanks.

Raeven Bathory

3:32 p.m.

New subject: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] licenses: GPL permutations

http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses#GPLv3-incompatible_l... On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Loui wrote:

...

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:58:20 +0300 "Roman Kyrylych" wrote:

...
2008/3/30, Loui :

...
I don't like all these "this version or later" boondongles. Why don't we just keep things KISS and let people explicitly state what licenses are permissable. GPL1, GPL2, GPL3. Put one, or more of those in your licenses array and it's crystal clear what you mean.

GPL2 "or, at your opinion, any later version" is not the same as GPL2 only + GPL3 or later. ;)

Can you explain why they are not the same? I don't quite understand why that doesn't work. Thanks.

http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses#GPLv3-incompatible_l...

Grigorios Bouzakis

3:42 p.m.

New subject: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] licenses: GPL permutations

On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 04:32:54PM +0100, Raeven Bathory wrote:

...

[1]http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses#GPLv3-incompatible_l...

On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Loui <[2]louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:58:20 +0300 "Roman Kyrylych" <[3]roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2008/3/30, Loui <[4]louipc.ist@gmail.com>: > > I don't like all these "this version or later" boondongles. > > Why don't we just keep things KISS and let people explicitly state what > > licenses are permissable. GPL1, GPL2, GPL3. Put one, or more of those > > in your licenses array and it's crystal clear what you mean. > > GPL2 "or, at your opinion, any later version" is not the same as GPL2 > only + GPL3 or later. ;) >

Can you explain why they are not the same? I don't quite understand why that doesn't work. Thanks.

[5]http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses#GPLv3-incompatible_l...

Excuse me but why is this being discussed again? The was an extensive discussion on arch-dev-public in the past. Decisions were made. If you have anything against how GPL licenses are treated in the PKGBUILD license array please read the discussion and comment on it. Dont start a new discussion from scratch. Greg

Loui

6:53 p.m.

New subject: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] licenses: GPL permutations

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:32:54 +0100 "Raeven Bathory" wrote:

...

Loui wrote:

...
"Roman Kyrylych" wrote:

...
GPL2 "or, at your opinion, any later version" is not the same as GPL2 only + GPL3 or later. ;)

Can you explain why they are not the same? I don't quite understand why that doesn't work. Thanks.

http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses#GPLv3-incompatible_l...

Yes, I already understood that GPL2 and GPL3 are incompatible but that doesn't mean a project can't license under both terms. If you own the code you can do whatever the hell you want. That's why you have some projects that have dual open licensing and commercial licensing. Your link doesn't do anything to explain why (GPL2 or later, GPL3) is practically any different than (GPL2, GPL3) Am I missing anything? Please let me know.

Timm Preetz

31 Mar 31 Mar

12:24 p.m.

New subject: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] licenses: GPL permutations

On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 14:53 -0400, Loui wrote:

...

...
Loui wrote:

...
"Roman Kyrylych" wrote:

...
GPL2 "or, at your opinion, any later version" is not the same as GPL2 only + GPL3 or later. ;)

Can you explain why they are not the same? I don't quite understand why that doesn't work. Thanks.

http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses#GPLv3-incompatible_l...

Your link doesn't do anything to explain why (GPL2 or later, GPL3) is practically any different than (GPL2, GPL3)

Am I missing anything? Please let me know.

I think, what Roman states (and what is right as far as I know), is that (GPL2+) != (GPL2, GPL3+). That's all I guess.

Aaron Griffin

4:24 p.m.

New subject: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] licenses: GPL permutations

On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Loui wrote:

...

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:32:54 +0100 "Raeven Bathory" wrote:

...
Loui wrote:

...
...
"Roman Kyrylych" wrote:

...
...
...
GPL2 "or, at your opinion, any later version" is not the same as GPL2 only + GPL3 or later. ;)

Can you explain why they are not the same? I don't quite understand why that doesn't work. Thanks.

http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses#GPLv3-incompatible_l...

Yes, I already understood that GPL2 and GPL3 are incompatible but that doesn't mean a project can't license under both terms.

If you own the code you can do whatever the hell you want. That's why you have some projects that have dual open licensing and commercial licensing.

Your link doesn't do anything to explain why (GPL2 or later, GPL3) is practically any different than (GPL2, GPL3)

Am I missing anything? Please let me know.

Man, I'm the first one to admit that arguing semantics is awesome, but don't you think we're getting WAY to picky here? Read the GPL2. It actually says somewhere in there that it scales up to newer versions of the license at the behest of the author.

JJDaNiMoTh

7:36 p.m.

New subject: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] licenses: GPL permutations

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:24:47 -0500 "Aaron Griffin" wrote:

...

On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Loui wrote:

...
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:32:54 +0100 "Raeven Bathory" wrote:

...
Loui wrote:

...
...
"Roman Kyrylych" wrote:

[cut]

Man, I'm the first one to admit that arguing semantics is awesome, but don't you think we're getting WAY to picky here?

Read the GPL2. It actually says somewhere in there that it scales up to newer versions of the license at the behest of the author.

Don't true. It's opionion of the user that use a program licensed under GPL2+. -- JJDaNiMoTh - ArchLinux Trusted User

Loui

9:27 p.m.

New subject: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] licenses: GPL permutations

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:24:47 -0500 "Aaron Griffin" wrote:

...

Man, I'm the first one to admit that arguing semantics is awesome, but don't you think we're getting WAY to picky here?

Read the GPL2. It actually says somewhere in there that it scales up to newer versions of the license at the behest of the author.

You're right. Maybe I got too picky; I was really only trying to clearly understand how others are interpreting these license terms. My point is that if a program specifies a license version, only THAT version applies unless the program explicitly states "any later version". The GPL is misleading in the section "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" by telling authors to put "(at your option) any later version." in their programs. That section is not part of the terms, but rather just an addendum. From section 9 of the GPL version 2: 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. By this text, taking "GPL" to mean "GPL2 or later" is erroneous. It should mean any version of GPL. Paul's original post in this thread is the most accurate and should probably be the way to deal with these licenses.

...

GPL - any version of GPL GPL2 - only version 2 GPL2+ - version 2 or later GPL3 - version 3 only GPL3+ - version 3 or later

Oh and...

...

Do we need a GPL1 and GPL1+? Seems like we would need a GPL1. GPL1+ is logically the same as GPL since there are no previous versions (are there?)

Cheers, and thanks for reading.

Roman Kyrylych

9:57 p.m.

New subject: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] licenses: GPL permutations

2008/4/1, Loui : [skipped] Thousands of PKGBUILDs use license=('GPL') for "version 2 or later" already, there's no point to change this just because of cosmethics (though I like cosmethics myself :-P).

...

...
Do we need a GPL1 and GPL1+?

Seems like we would need a GPL1. GPL1+ is logically the same as GPL since there are no previous versions (are there?)

I haven't seen a single piece of code licensed under GPLv1 ever. :-) While I do understand your arguments this thread has similar opinions as the previous one, so it doesn't have much use to repeat all arguments again IMHO, as they all can be read in previous discussion thread. We're busy with new interesting things now, so anything like this is definetely very low priority, even if something like this could be changed. Thanks for participating in discussions. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

Aaron Griffin

10:29 p.m.

New subject: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] licenses: GPL permutations

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Roman Kyrylych wrote:

...

2008/4/1, Loui :

...
...
Do we need a GPL1 and GPL1+?

Seems like we would need a GPL1. GPL1+ is logically the same as GPL since there are no previous versions (are there?)

I haven't seen a single piece of code licensed under GPLv1 ever. :-)

Ok. How about this. Lets assume "GPL" means 1.0 and up. Problem solved because it will... *ahem, let me clear my throat* never ever ever ever ever ever happen.

5870

Age (days ago)

5871

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

11 comments

7 participants

participants (7)

Aaron Griffin
Grigorios Bouzakis
JJDaNiMoTh
Loui
Raeven Bathory
Roman Kyrylych
Timm Preetz