[aur-general] Licenses, GPL3 only
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? Regards, -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
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
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 enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Philipp Überbacher <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
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 Überbacher <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 enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
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
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 enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
On Monday 23 August 2010 09:15:05 Philipp Überbacher 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.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 13:15, Philipp Überbacher <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．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe
Excerpts from Magnus Therning's message of 2010-08-23 14:47:32 +0200:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 13:15, Philipp Überbacher <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 enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
On 23 August 2010 20:47, Magnus Therning <magnus@therning.org> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 13:15, Philipp Überbacher <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.
s/released/was in planning/ Linux has been GPL2-only since Linus realised he didn't like what was going to come, as quoted [1]: "Why? There's been some discussions of a GPL v3 which would limit licensing to certain "well-behaved" parties, and I'm not sure I'd agree with such restrictions - and the GPL itself allows for "any version" so I wanted to make this part unambigious as far as my personal code is concerned." This started the "GPLn-only" trend. The so-called standard the wiki mentions was only discussed after the distribute-GPL-sources fiasco [2], but I could be wrong. Before that, very few people actually bothered to note the differences between a GPL and a GPLn license, using "GPL" to refer to both. This is evident on a more prominent scale from the LKML discussion. I don't know of any software besides the kernel having a GPL2-only license, but there probably are. It is perfectly valid, but I don't think it warrants any kind of discussion or standard yet. Like mentioned, use: custom:GPL3-only [1] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0009.1/0096.html [2] http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5355 -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
On Monday 23 August 2010 16:56:29 Ray Rashif wrote:
I don't know of any software besides the kernel having a GPL2-only license, but there probably are. It is perfectly valid, but I don't think it warrants any kind of discussion or standard yet. Like mentioned, use:
I don't think I am that original, and I have one: http://code.google.com/p/urssus/ (it's in AUR)
Excerpts from Roberto Alsina's message of 2010-08-23 22:08:46 +0200:
On Monday 23 August 2010 16:56:29 Ray Rashif wrote:
I don't know of any software besides the kernel having a GPL2-only license, but there probably are. It is perfectly valid, but I don't think it warrants any kind of discussion or standard yet. Like mentioned, use:
I don't think I am that original, and I have one: http://code.google.com/p/urssus/ (it's in AUR)
As you put it yourself, any program that says GPL2 is GPL2 only, you need to explicitly say "or later". People who follow the fsf recommendation closely use the text from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html that includes "or later" by default. For that reason I guess that there's more "GPL2 only" than "GPL2 or later" software out there. -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
Excerpts from Ray Rashif's message of 2010-08-23 21:56:29 +0200:
On 23 August 2010 20:47, Magnus Therning <magnus@therning.org> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 13:15, Philipp Überbacher <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.
s/released/was in planning/
Linux has been GPL2-only since Linus realised he didn't like what was going to come, as quoted [1]:
"Why? There's been some discussions of a GPL v3 which would limit licensing to certain "well-behaved" parties, and I'm not sure I'd agree with such restrictions - and the GPL itself allows for "any version" so I wanted to make this part unambigious as far as my personal code is concerned."
This started the "GPLn-only" trend. The so-called standard the wiki mentions was only discussed after the distribute-GPL-sources fiasco [2], but I could be wrong. Before that, very few people actually bothered to note the differences between a GPL and a GPLn license, using "GPL" to refer to both. This is evident on a more prominent scale from the LKML discussion.
I don't know of any software besides the kernel having a GPL2-only license, but there probably are. It is perfectly valid, but I don't think it warrants any kind of discussion or standard yet. Like mentioned, use:
custom:GPL3-only
[1] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0009.1/0096.html [2] http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5355
Thanks, nice to see where it started. All clear now. -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
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.
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 enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
On Mon 23 Aug 2010 12:03 +0200, Philipp 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?
Here's my proposed scheme: GPL = Any GPL license GPL1 = GPL1 only GPL2 = GPL2 only GPL3 = GPL3 only If you want to use 2 and 3, just list them both in the licenses array. Future proof.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon 23 Aug 2010 12:03 +0200, Philipp 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?
Here's my proposed scheme: GPL = Any GPL license GPL1 = GPL1 only GPL2 = GPL2 only GPL3 = GPL3 only
If you want to use 2 and 3, just list them both in the licenses array. Future proof.
I've never seen an applications under the 'any GPL" license, it's always GPL2 or higher.... either way, it is never future proof. What for some reason people start to switch licenses to GPL3 or higher if/when GPL4 is removed...there can always be something. Ronald
On Thu 26 Aug 2010 12:48 +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon 23 Aug 2010 12:03 +0200, Philipp 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?
Here's my proposed scheme: GPL = Any GPL license GPL1 = GPL1 only GPL2 = GPL2 only GPL3 = GPL3 only
If you want to use 2 and 3, just list them both in the licenses array. Future proof.
I've never seen an applications under the 'any GPL" license, it's always GPL2 or higher....
It exists as part of the license at any rate.
either way, it is never future proof. What for some reason people start to switch licenses to GPL3 or higher if/when GPL4 is removed...there can always be something.
I'm very confused. Can you rephrase that?
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu 26 Aug 2010 12:48 +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon 23 Aug 2010 12:03 +0200, Philipp 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?
Here's my proposed scheme: GPL = Any GPL license GPL1 = GPL1 only GPL2 = GPL2 only GPL3 = GPL3 only
If you want to use 2 and 3, just list them both in the licenses array. Future proof.
I've never seen an applications under the 'any GPL" license, it's always GPL2 or higher....
It exists as part of the license at any rate.
either way, it is never future proof. What for some reason people start to switch licenses to GPL3 or higher if/when GPL4 is removed...there can always be something.
I'm very confused. Can you rephrase that?
sure... I'm doing five things at once so I didn't think much about what I was saying.. either way, most licenses say 'licensed under the GNU General Public License version 2 or, at your option any later version'. In our current naming scheme this is what we call 'GPL', in your scheme I'm not sure how you would call it. Which was my first point. My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring. Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to create a naming scheme which will fit all. The way we currently have it seems to fit all current GPL packages. IMO GPL3 is still GPL3 only as there is no later GPL license. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think all GPL3 only packages in our repos have just GPL3 in the license array? The GPL3 text says the following: +++++ 14. Revised Versions of this License. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU 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 that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you to choose that version for the Program. Later license versions may give you additional or different permissions. However, no additional obligations are imposed on any author or copyright holder as a result of your choosing to follow a later version. +++++ so as long as the program does not specify 'any later version' or states just the version to be used it is fine if I understand it correctly. Ronald
On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:12:23 Ronald van Haren wrote:
My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring. Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to create a naming scheme which will fit all.
Sure: GPL2 GPL2+ GPL3 GPL3+ etc. For convenience, you may want to make GPL the equivalent of GPL2+
Excerpts from Roberto Alsina's message of 2010-08-26 13:16:05 +0200:
On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:12:23 Ronald van Haren wrote:
My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring. Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to create a naming scheme which will fit all.
Sure:
GPL2 GPL2+ GPL3 GPL3+ etc.
That's what I'd be in favor of. I'm not sure the '+' is the best way, because it has other meanings than 'any later' as well.
For convenience, you may want to make GPL the equivalent of GPL2+
I think that's not convenient but confusing. -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Philipp Überbacher <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
Excerpts from Roberto Alsina's message of 2010-08-26 13:16:05 +0200:
On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:12:23 Ronald van Haren wrote:
My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring. Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to create a naming scheme which will fit all.
Sure:
GPL2 GPL2+ GPL3 GPL3+ etc.
That's what I'd be in favor of. I'm not sure the '+' is the best way, because it has other meanings than 'any later' as well.
I missed the bloody obvious.... :lol:
For convenience, you may want to make GPL the equivalent of GPL2+
I think that's not convenient but confusing. --
Even with setting GPL to GPL2+, it is a lot of work. I don't even want to think about the amount of work it creates not doing so... Not sure if it is really worth the effort at this point. Ronald
Excerpts from Ronald van Haren's message of 2010-08-26 13:29:09 +0200:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Philipp Überbacher <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
Excerpts from Roberto Alsina's message of 2010-08-26 13:16:05 +0200:
On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:12:23 Ronald van Haren wrote:
My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring. Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to create a naming scheme which will fit all.
Sure:
GPL2 GPL2+ GPL3 GPL3+ etc.
That's what I'd be in favor of. I'm not sure the '+' is the best way, because it has other meanings than 'any later' as well.
I missed the bloody obvious.... :lol:
For convenience, you may want to make GPL the equivalent of GPL2+
I think that's not convenient but confusing. --
Even with setting GPL to GPL2+, it is a lot of work. I don't even want to think about the amount of work it creates not doing so... Not sure if it is really worth the effort at this point.
Ronald
That's the trouble. The current naming scheme isn't future proof. Changing it would be a lot of work as it affects every single package and pacman and helpers. I guess we could extend the current scheme in a future proof manner, but overall it would be inconsistent. Keep the current meaning: GPL = GPL2 or later GPL2 = GPL2 only GPL3 = GPL3 or later Add something for the GPL3 only case: GPL3o = GPL3 only <- find some nicer way Basically start a new, consistent scheme with GPL4: GPL4 = GPL4 only GPL4+ = GPL4 or later .. If they come up with something fancier than a plain 'or later' we might be in trouble again. Alternatively: Keep the current meaning: GPL = GPL2 or later GPL2 = GPL2 only GPL3 = GPL3 or later Add something for the GPL3 only case: GPL3o = GPL3 only <- find some nicer way Keep using the GPL3 way: GPL4 = GPL4 or later GPL4o = GPL4 only It's all a bunch of hacks to avoid a transition from the current scheme to a new one. Maybe a solution would be to find a way to ease said transition. -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:25:06 Philipp Überbacher wrote:
Excerpts from Roberto Alsina's message of 2010-08-26 13:16:05 +0200:
On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:12:23 Ronald van Haren wrote:
My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring. Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to create a naming scheme which will fit all.
Sure:
GPL2 GPL2+ GPL3 GPL3+ etc.
That's what I'd be in favor of. I'm not sure the '+' is the best way, because it has other meanings than 'any later' as well.
I have not heard of something called GPL2+ before. What is it?
For convenience, you may want to make GPL the equivalent of GPL2+
I think that's not convenient but confusing.
Or you may not, of course ;-)
Excerpts from Roberto Alsina's message of 2010-08-26 13:31:15 +0200:
On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:25:06 Philipp Überbacher wrote:
Excerpts from Roberto Alsina's message of 2010-08-26 13:16:05 +0200:
On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:12:23 Ronald van Haren wrote:
My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring. Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to create a naming scheme which will fit all.
Sure:
GPL2 GPL2+ GPL3 GPL3+ etc.
That's what I'd be in favor of. I'm not sure the '+' is the best way, because it has other meanings than 'any later' as well.
I have not heard of something called GPL2+ before. What is it?
Exactly my point, there's no official abbreviation of 'GPL2 or later' that I know of, and the '+' has the meaning of addition in mathematics and is often used to mean 'better', which isn't the same as 'later'.
For convenience, you may want to make GPL the equivalent of GPL2+
I think that's not convenient but confusing.
Or you may not, of course ;-)
If we change the scheme we need one that's future proof and more intuitive than the current one, otherwise switching doesn't make sense at all. It's probably not easy to come up with the perfect scheme. Something like GPL = 'GPL2 or later' is imho not intuitive. -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
On 26 August 2010 19:16, Roberto Alsina <ralsina@netmanagers.com.ar> wrote:
On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:12:23 Ronald van Haren wrote:
My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring. Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to create a naming scheme which will fit all.
Sure:
GPL2 GPL2+ GPL3 GPL3+ etc.
For convenience, you may want to make GPL the equivalent of GPL2+
Here's what is currently being done: ln -s GPL2 GPL So in fact, we don't even have the text of the "only" version. Neither does the FSF. There is no proper "example", "template" or "draft" for a GPLn-only license. For eg. the kernel has this in its COPYING: <quote> NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it. Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. Linus Torvalds </quote> That is the only difference between that license text and the one in /usr/share/common, i.e it is a special case, a GPL2 license with an "exception clause". Otherwise, both have exactly 2 occurences of "any later version". == GPL2 == If we want to honour cases like that, we would have to encourage the inclusion of the license. So, our kernel should mention: license=('custom:GPL2') And include /usr/share/licenses/kernel26/COPYING. All cases of "custom" should naturally imply that there is a license text to check out. All other "normal" GPL software should have: license=('GPL') Which needs no intervention. == GPL3 == Now, because the texts of the GPL2 and GPL3 are different, we cannot, for eg. symlink anything to GPL3. But in the above manner, software like the kernel need to have: license=('custom:GPL3') And include /usr/share/licenses/foobar/COPYING. While the rest of the GPL3 software can just have: license=('GPL3') == TL;DR == Basically, we just standardise the use of: license=('custom:GPLn') For software with GPL exception texts, and include the license. Only the kernel (and mysql? [1]) package needs to be changed to conform to this; nothing else needs to be done. Very "future proof", IMO. [1] http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/01/04/mysqls-license-is-now-gpl-2-only/ -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
Excerpts from Ray Rashif's message of 2010-08-26 14:23:22 +0200:
On 26 August 2010 19:16, Roberto Alsina <ralsina@netmanagers.com.ar> wrote:
On Thursday 26 August 2010 08:12:23 Ronald van Haren wrote:
My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring. Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to create a naming scheme which will fit all.
Sure:
GPL2 GPL2+ GPL3 GPL3+ etc.
For convenience, you may want to make GPL the equivalent of GPL2+
Here's what is currently being done:
ln -s GPL2 GPL
So in fact, we don't even have the text of the "only" version. Neither does the FSF.
Because there is only one version of the GPL2 and GPL3 respectively, but a program can be licensed with multiple GPL versions. Now what the license array exists for, imho, is to inform the user which licensing terms are available for the program.
There is no proper "example", "template" or "draft" for a GPLn-only license. For eg. the kernel has this in its COPYING:
<quote> NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
Linus Torvalds </quote>
That is the only difference between that license text and the one in /usr/share/common, i.e it is a special case, a GPL2 license with an "exception clause". Otherwise, both have exactly 2 occurences of "any later version".
No, there's no exception clause to the GPL at all, it merely states, very clearly, that this software is only available under the terms of the GPL2. It wouldn't need to be that explicit, it could just say "GPL2" and it would mean the same thing, but apparently Linus intended to make very clear that it isn't available under the terms of any other GPL license. It's really nothing special.
== GPL2 == If we want to honour cases like that, we would have to encourage the inclusion of the license. So, our kernel should mention:
license=('custom:GPL2')
And include /usr/share/licenses/kernel26/COPYING. All cases of "custom" should naturally imply that there is a license text to check out.
Nope, just GPL2 as for any other GPL2 software is fine. Read the license, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html#SEC3 9. A "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." The one sentence implies to me that GPL2 only doesn't exist, but it does, I asked at #fsf. It's just not encouraged.
All other "normal" GPL software should have:
license=('GPL')
Which needs no intervention.
If the author says just 'GPL' then it can be any GPL version, as you can read above. That a case arch hasn't covered either.
== GPL3 == Now, because the texts of the GPL2 and GPL3 are different, we cannot, for eg. symlink anything to GPL3. But in the above manner, software like the kernel need to have:
license=('custom:GPL3')
And include /usr/share/licenses/foobar/COPYING.
While the rest of the GPL3 software can just have:
license=('GPL3')
GPL3 or GPL3 later is the same license text, it also only depends on whether the author specifies the "or later". It should also be easily visible for Arch users, something that is currently not the case. Arch currently doesn't cover the cases where the author just says "GPL3".
== TL;DR == Basically, we just standardise the use of:
license=('custom:GPLn')
For software with GPL exception texts, and include the license. Only the kernel (and mysql? [1]) package needs to be changed to conform to this; nothing else needs to be done. Very "future proof", IMO.
[1] http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/01/04/mysqls-license-is-now-gpl-2-only/
Again, it's no exception, it's the use of this one license and this one license only. -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
On 26 August 2010 21:23, Philipp Überbacher <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
Again, it's no exception, it's the use of this one license and this one license only.
You're right, I totally misused the term "exception" [1]. Let's forget about semantics. As I understood your initial concern, we have no "standard" in place to make it clear which version of the GPL a software package is under. Is that correct? What I proposed only makes the distinction between a GPL and a GPLn-only license by the use of the word "custom" in the license array, and a license file in the appropriate place (because there is added text). Nothing more, nothing less. This would definitely be "clear", because obviously, from a visual perspective, "Licenses: GPL3" and "Licenses: custom:GPL3" are clearly not the same. Loui's proposal is good, but as Ronald mentioned, we don't have anything to do with GPL1 anymore. Moreover, even if we didn't count GPL1, there is no way to link GPL to GPL2 _and_ GPL3 on the filesystem. We could also go with "Licenses: GPL3-only", or a derivative of that, as long as it does not require change in a lot of our buildscripts (which would be the case for the "+" proposal and I don't think this is strong enough of a case to motivate that). [1] http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/ -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
Excerpts from Ray Rashif's message of 2010-08-26 18:45:36 +0200:
On 26 August 2010 21:23, Philipp Überbacher <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
Again, it's no exception, it's the use of this one license and this one license only.
You're right, I totally misused the term "exception" [1]. Let's forget about semantics. As I understood your initial concern, we have no "standard" in place to make it clear which version of the GPL a software package is under. Is that correct?
We have a standard in place to distinguish between different versions of the GPL, for v2 and v3. Out standard also allows to distinguish between v2 only and v2 or later.
What I proposed only makes the distinction between a GPL and a GPLn-only license by the use of the word "custom" in the license array, and a license file in the appropriate place (because there is added text). Nothing more, nothing less. This would definitely be "clear", because obviously, from a visual perspective, "Licenses: GPL3" and "Licenses: custom:GPL3" are clearly not the same.
It would be nice to distinguish between GPLvN only and GPLvN or later for any N. The question is which way is optimal.
Loui's proposal is good, but as Ronald mentioned, we don't have anything to do with GPL1 anymore.
Not exactly true. Perl and pretty much any Perl package is Artistic license and GPLv1 or later. Out Perl package says Artistic and GPLv2 or later.
Moreover, even if we didn't count GPL1, there is no way to link GPL to GPL2 _and_ GPL3 on the filesystem.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Not counting LGPL and the likes there are 3 GPL license texts, v1, v2 and v3. I think no matter whether the program is distributed as 'v2 or later' or 'v2 only' it would be sufficient to link it with the v2 text.
We could also go with "Licenses: GPL3-only", or a derivative of that, as long as it does not require change in a lot of our buildscripts (which would be the case for the "+" proposal and I don't think this is strong enough of a case to motivate that).
I understand that this is the main problem, a change to a new system would either be another hack or require a change in basically every package. Maybe we can: 1) come up with a scheme that is intuitive and future proof, that we can all agree on. 2) come up with a way that allows a slow transition to the new system, so that it doesn't require extra effort and rebuilds.
[1] http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/
So mysql is distributed as GPL v2 only, but they added an exception to make it compatible with any of the license in the list. In this case I'd say GPLv2 only + custom or just custom (I'm not sure about the details), but [extra] says: License=('GPL'). -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
Philipp Überbacher wrote:
It would be nice to distinguish between GPLvN only and GPLvN or later for any N. The question is which way is optimal.
GPL2 GPL2-only GPL3 GPL3-only etc Wouldn't that both be clear and avoid sweeping changes as most things are licensed under the standard "this version or later" license? Also, if it's a pita to change now, it will only be a bigger pita later when it becomes an actual problem.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
Philipp Überbacher wrote:
It would be nice to distinguish between GPLvN only and GPLvN or later for any N. The question is which way is optimal.
GPL2 GPL2-only GPL3 GPL3-only etc
Wouldn't that both be clear and avoid sweeping changes as most things are licensed under the standard "this version or later" license?
clear yes, avoid sweeping changes no. most packages are currently gpl2 or later, hence called 'GPL'. These need to be changes to GPL2. packages which currently are GPL2 need to be converted to GPL2-only. You can of course keep both GPL2 and GPL for gpl2 or later for now. Ronald
Excerpts from Ronald van Haren's message of 2010-08-26 20:10:00 +0200:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
Philipp Überbacher wrote:
It would be nice to distinguish between GPLvN only and GPLvN or later for any N. The question is which way is optimal.
GPL2 GPL2-only GPL3 GPL3-only etc
Wouldn't that both be clear and avoid sweeping changes as most things are licensed under the standard "this version or later" license?
clear yes, avoid sweeping changes no.
most packages are currently gpl2 or later, hence called 'GPL'. These need to be changes to GPL2. packages which currently are GPL2 need to be converted to GPL2-only. You can of course keep both GPL2 and GPL for gpl2 or later for now.
Ronald
I also wonder about the GPLv1/any case. It's nothing that should be used anymore, but technically all the perl stuff would need 'GPLv1 or later' which is the same as 'GPL any'. -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
On Thursday 26 August 2010 15:38:43 Philipp Überbacher wrote:
Excerpts from Ronald van Haren's message of 2010-08-26 20:10:00 +0200:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
Philipp Überbacher wrote:
It would be nice to distinguish between GPLvN only and GPLvN or later for any N. The question is which way is optimal.
GPL2 GPL2-only GPL3 GPL3-only etc
Wouldn't that both be clear and avoid sweeping changes as most things are licensed under the standard "this version or later" license?
clear yes, avoid sweeping changes no.
most packages are currently gpl2 or later, hence called 'GPL'. These need to be changes to GPL2. packages which currently are GPL2 need to be converted to GPL2-only. You can of course keep both GPL2 and GPL for gpl2 or later for now.
Ronald
I also wonder about the GPLv1/any case. It's nothing that should be used anymore, but technically all the perl stuff would need 'GPLv1 or later' which is the same as 'GPL any'.
Just in case: if a package is licensed under "GPLvX and later" and Arch says it's GPLvY (with Y >= X) and doesn't say anything about "or later", that's not a problem, for Arch, really, it will be using one of the allowed licenses in any case. It may be a problem if it ends combining it with another program which requires one of the "later" GPLs, though.
On Thu 26 Aug 2010 13:12 +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu 26 Aug 2010 12:48 +0200, Ronald van Haren wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon 23 Aug 2010 12:03 +0200, Philipp 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?
Here's my proposed scheme: GPL = Any GPL license GPL1 = GPL1 only GPL2 = GPL2 only GPL3 = GPL3 only
If you want to use 2 and 3, just list them both in the licenses array. Future proof.
I've never seen an applications under the 'any GPL" license, it's always GPL2 or higher....
It exists as part of the license at any rate.
either way, it is never future proof. What for some reason people start to switch licenses to GPL3 or higher if/when GPL4 is removed...there can always be something.
I'm very confused. Can you rephrase that?
sure... I'm doing five things at once so I didn't think much about what I was saying..
either way, most licenses say 'licensed under the GNU General Public License version 2 or, at your option any later version'.
In our current naming scheme this is what we call 'GPL', in your scheme I'm not sure how you would call it. Which was my first point.
My second point was that we don't know what the future will bring. Will new applications being licensed under GPL2 or later, GPL3 or later, GPL4, GPL4 or later... there are lots of options. There are lots of possibilities and I'm wondering if it is at all feasible to create a naming scheme which will fit all.
The way we currently have it seems to fit all current GPL packages. IMO GPL3 is still GPL3 only as there is no later GPL license. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think all GPL3 only packages in our repos have just GPL3 in the license array?
What really concerns us as distributors is what makes things clear and simple. We can always use and distribute under the first available license. Really there is no need for us to worry about 'any later version' of a license. That's only something that app developers might want to pay attention to if they're linking, forking or borrowing code. In that case they bloody well read the documentation and not blame Arch for incomplete (but still correct) license information.
Excerpts from Loui Chang's message of 2010-08-26 12:40:56 +0200:
On Mon 23 Aug 2010 12:03 +0200, Philipp 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?
Here's my proposed scheme: GPL = Any GPL license GPL1 = GPL1 only GPL2 = GPL2 only GPL3 = GPL3 only
If you want to use 2 and 3, just list them both in the licenses array. Future proof.
It would turn ugly if there was an inflation of GPL licenses though. license=('GPL1' 'GPL2' 'GPL3' 'GPL4' 'GPL5' 'GPL6' 'GPL7' 'GPL8') Besides that, I think it's future proof. One issue though is that the meaning of: ('GPL2' 'GPL3') isn't the same as: 'GPL2 or later' It only is practically the same because there's nothing beyond GPL3 yet. -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:18:30 +0200 Philipp Überbacher <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
Besides that, I think it's future proof. One issue though is that the meaning of: ('GPL2' 'GPL3') isn't the same as: 'GPL2 or later' It only is practically the same because there's nothing beyond GPL3 yet.
Just out of curiosity... Supposed, there is a GPL4 around at some time in the future. Now, if I receive some software under the terms of "GPL2 or later", would it be in my right, to redistribute said software under "GPL3 only" as opposed to "GPL3 or later"?
Excerpts from Alexander Duscheleit's message of 2010-08-26 19:57:35 +0200:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:18:30 +0200 Philipp Überbacher <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
Besides that, I think it's future proof. One issue though is that the meaning of: ('GPL2' 'GPL3') isn't the same as: 'GPL2 or later' It only is practically the same because there's nothing beyond GPL3 yet.
Just out of curiosity...
Supposed, there is a GPL4 around at some time in the future. Now, if I receive some software under the terms of "GPL2 or later", would it be in my right, to redistribute said software under "GPL3 only" as opposed to "GPL3 or later"?
That's a good question, and my guess is 'no', because you're restricting the ones you give the program to. But technically you also limit the choice by not allowing GPLv2 anymore, so I really don't know. IANAL :) -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
On Thursday 26 August 2010 at 18:57 Alexander Duscheleit wrote:
Philipp Überbacher <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
Besides that, I think it's future proof. One issue though is that the meaning of: ('GPL2' 'GPL3') isn't the same as: 'GPL2 or later' It only is practically the same because there's nothing beyond GPL3 yet.
Just out of curiosity...
Supposed, there is a GPL4 around at some time in the future. Now, if I receive some software under the terms of "GPL2 or later", would it be in my right, to redistribute said software under "GPL3 only" as opposed to "GPL3 or later"?
Yes, this is your right. Just as you can take some software released under "GPL2 or at your option, any later version" and redistribute it under GPL3 only. This is "your option". You do not have the pass the option on, since that doesn't form part of the copyleft. Of course, someone else can redistribute the original under GPL2 only, GPL4 only, GPL2 "or later" or GPL3 "or later". That's their option :-) HTH, Pete.
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:22:03 +0100 Peter Lewis <pete@muddygoat.org> wrote:
On Thursday 26 August 2010 at 18:57 Alexander Duscheleit wrote:
Philipp Überbacher <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
Besides that, I think it's future proof. One issue though is that the meaning of: ('GPL2' 'GPL3') isn't the same as: 'GPL2 or later' It only is practically the same because there's nothing beyond GPL3 yet.
Just out of curiosity...
Supposed, there is a GPL4 around at some time in the future. Now, if I receive some software under the terms of "GPL2 or later", would it be in my right, to redistribute said software under "GPL3 only" as opposed to "GPL3 or later"?
Yes, this is your right. Just as you can take some software released under "GPL2 or at your option, any later version" and redistribute it under GPL3 only. This is "your option". You do not have the pass the option on, since that doesn't form part of the copyleft.
Of course, someone else can redistribute the original under GPL2 only, GPL4 only, GPL2 "or later" or GPL3 "or later". That's their option :-)
That was my understanding, too. :-) It gets more interesting, when I make changes to my redistributed software, though. If i understand correctly, if upstream is GPL2+ and my version is GLP3 only, I effectively either cut upstream out from my changes or force them to upgrade their version to GPL3 only (not even GPL3+). This looks to me, like I could violate the spirit of the GPL through the GPL itself. (Poaching in lawyers waters as a layman sure is fun :-D.) Jinks
Excerpts from Alexander Duscheleit's message of 2010-08-27 21:31:29 +0200:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:22:03 +0100 Peter Lewis <pete@muddygoat.org> wrote:
On Thursday 26 August 2010 at 18:57 Alexander Duscheleit wrote:
Philipp Überbacher <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
Besides that, I think it's future proof. One issue though is that the meaning of: ('GPL2' 'GPL3') isn't the same as: 'GPL2 or later' It only is practically the same because there's nothing beyond GPL3 yet.
Just out of curiosity...
Supposed, there is a GPL4 around at some time in the future. Now, if I receive some software under the terms of "GPL2 or later", would it be in my right, to redistribute said software under "GPL3 only" as opposed to "GPL3 or later"?
Yes, this is your right. Just as you can take some software released under "GPL2 or at your option, any later version" and redistribute it under GPL3 only. This is "your option". You do not have the pass the option on, since that doesn't form part of the copyleft.
Of course, someone else can redistribute the original under GPL2 only, GPL4 only, GPL2 "or later" or GPL3 "or later". That's their option :-)
That was my understanding, too. :-)
It gets more interesting, when I make changes to my redistributed software, though. If i understand correctly, if upstream is GPL2+ and my version is GLP3 only, I effectively either cut upstream out from my changes or force them to upgrade their version to GPL3 only (not even GPL3+). This looks to me, like I could violate the spirit of the GPL through the GPL itself. (Poaching in lawyers waters as a layman sure is fun :-D.)
Jinks
Someone in #fsf on freenode might be able to answer you. I guess the answer would be: "optimally there would be no such thing as GPLvN only". -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
On Friday 27 August 2010 at 20:31 Alexander Duscheleit wrote:
Yes, this is your right. Just as you can take some software released under "GPL2 or at your option, any later version" and redistribute it under GPL3 only. This is "your option". You do not have the pass the option on, since that doesn't form part of the copyleft.
Of course, someone else can redistribute the original under GPL2 only, GPL4 only, GPL2 "or later" or GPL3 "or later". That's their option :-)
That was my understanding, too. :-)
Excellent.
It gets more interesting, when I make changes to my redistributed software, though. If i understand correctly, if upstream is GPL2+ and my version is GLP3 only, I effectively either cut upstream out from my changes or force them to upgrade their version to GPL3 only (not even GPL3+).
Well, it's up to them what patches they include in the code they maintain, I suppose, so you can't force upstream to do anything. Many (most?) projects require you to licence your contributions under the same terms as the original if you want your patch considered (including any options), AFAIK. Doing otherwise, I suppose, would be considered a fork.
This looks to me, like I could violate the spirit of the GPL through the GPL itself.
I think the FSF are now encouraging people to contact contributing authors to obtain their agreement to relicense their work under GPL3, if they did not originally permit that "option". (Keeping the "or later" option is useful therefore, since it can help to avoid situations like the one you describe).
(Poaching in lawyers waters as a layman sure is fun :-D.)
Yeah - I have a good friend who does all this stuff for a living and it's fun hearing about various stories of the GPL's perception within businesses. Pete.
participants (11)
-
Alexander Duscheleit
-
Loui Chang
-
Magnus Therning
-
Nathan Wayde
-
Peter Lewis
-
Philipp
-
Philipp Überbacher
-
Ray Rashif
-
Roberto Alsina
-
Ronald van Haren
-
Xyne