Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [fireball] 36426: [FORMATTING] - Reformat to the kernel coding style.

[Alex Ionescu]

Please show me where the developers of this code agreed to having  
their code GPL V3 licensed.

I would like to see a full trail of every developer that wrote this  
code, as well as written permission from them for you to slap on this  
license.

Thank you.

On 23-Sep-08, at 7:45 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> LICENSE:         GPL v2 or later - See COPYING in the top level
>
> directory

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

[gedmurphy]

Furthermore, you can't mix and match GPL2 and GPL3 in the same module.

"When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is no
legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a single
program. This is because both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft licenses: each of
them says, "If you include code under this license in a larger program, the
larger program must be under this license too." There is no way to make them
compatible. We could add a GPLv2-compatibility clause to GPLv3, but it
wouldn't do the job, because GPLv2 would need a similar clause."

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
On Behalf Of Alex Ionescu
Sent: 03 October 2008 15:16
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [ros-diffs] [fireball] 36426: [FORMATTING] - Reformat to the
kernel coding style.

Please show me where the developers of this code agreed to having  
their code GPL V3 licensed.

I would like to see a full trail of every developer that wrote this  
code, as well as written permission from them for you to slap on this  
license.

Thank you.

On 23-Sep-08, at 7:45 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> LICENSE:         GPL v2 or later - See COPYING in the top level
>
> directory

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

[Aleksey Bragin]

Where is the GPL v3 claim? CSRSS was claimed to be "GPL v2 or any  
later version (at your option)". I didn't mark it as v3, it WAS so  
already then.

On Oct 3, 2008, at 7:25 PM, gedmurphy wrote:
> Furthermore, you can't mix and match GPL2 and GPL3 in the same module.
>
> "When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there  
> is no
> legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a  
> single
> program. This is because both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft  
> licenses: each of
> them says, "If you include code under this license in a larger  
> program, the
> larger program must be under this license too." There is no way to  
> make them
> compatible. We could add a GPLv2-compatibility clause to GPLv3, but it
> wouldn't do the job, because GPLv2 would need a similar clause."

[Aleksey Bragin]

Have a look at the headers other files in this directory has,  
including "main" csrss.c:

* This software is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
* modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
* published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
* License, or (at your option) any later version.

This is where I've got this idea to take "either version 2 of the  
License, or (at your option) any later version".

Or is this the "at your option" clause? But then why is it present in  
this old header? Whose option is this? The one who wrote? Or the one  
who reuses?

I don't get all the flood on the irc channels related to this. I  
didn't change license of this component, ffs. If I did - explain me  
how, and I will acknowledge and fix my mistake (if any). I did the  
same change for, smss, a few days earlier, also with reformatting  
(changing headers), so let's solve that fast.

WBR,
Aleksey Bragin.

On Oct 3, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Alex Ionescu wrote:
> Please show me where the developers of this code agreed to having
> their code GPL V3 licensed.
>
> I would like to see a full trail of every developer that wrote this
> code, as well as written permission from them for you to slap on this
> license.
>
> Thank you.
>
> On 23-Sep-08, at 7:45 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > LICENSE:         GPL v2 or later - See COPYING in the top level
> >
> > directory
>
> Best regards,
> Alex Ionescu
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Alex Ionescu]

You basically assumed that a header from another file (probably copy- 
pasted) applies to the file you modified.

While I'm certainly being pedantic, and I admit it -- this shouldn't  
be a change to brush over.

Someone needs to figure out if the devs agree with v3 or not -- I  
personally don't so I've removed that from my kernel license.

You explicitly added "or later" to this file.

On 3-Oct-08, at 12:20 PM, Aleksey Bragin wrote:
> Have a look at the headers other files in this directory has,
> including "main" csrss.c:
> This software is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
> published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
> License, or (at your option) any later version.
>
> This is where I've got this idea to take "either version 2 of the
> License, or (at your option) any later version".
>
> Or is this the "at your option" clause? But then why is it present in
> this old header? Whose option is this? The one who wrote? Or the one
> who reuses?
>
> I don't get all the flood on the irc channels related to this. I
> didn't change license of this component, ffs. If I did - explain me
> how, and I will acknowledge and fix my mistake (if any). I did the
> same change for, smss, a few days earlier, also with reformatting
> (changing headers), so let's solve that fast.
>
> WBR,
> Aleksey Bragin.
>
> On Oct 3, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Alex Ionescu wrote:
> > Please show me where the developers of this code agreed to having
> > their code GPL V3 licensed.
> >
> > I would like to see a full trail of every developer that wrote this
> > code, as well as written permission from them for you to slap on this
> > license.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > On 23-Sep-08, at 7:45 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > > LICENSE:         GPL v2 or later - See COPYING in the top level
> > >
> > > directory
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Alex Ionescu
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

[James Tabor]

1st: No to v3!
2nd: No to v3!
3rd: No to v3!

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Alex Ionescu [e-mail] wrote:
> You basically assumed that a header from another file (probably copy-
> pasted) applies to the file you modified.
>
> While I'm certainly being pedantic, and I admit it -- this shouldn't
> be a change to brush over.
>
> Someone needs to figure out if the devs agree with v3 or not -- I
> personally don't so I've removed that from my kernel license.
>
> You explicitly added "or later" to this file.
>
> On 3-Oct-08, at 12:20 PM, Aleksey Bragin wrote:
> > Have a look at the headers other files in this directory has,
> > including "main" csrss.c:
> > This software is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> > modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
> > published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
> > License, or (at your option) any later version.
> >
> > This is where I've got this idea to take "either version 2 of the
> > License, or (at your option) any later version".
> >
> > Or is this the "at your option" clause? But then why is it present in
> > this old header? Whose option is this? The one who wrote? Or the one
> > who reuses?
> >
> > I don't get all the flood on the irc channels related to this. I
> > didn't change license of this component, ffs. If I did - explain me
> > how, and I will acknowledge and fix my mistake (if any). I did the
> > same change for, smss, a few days earlier, also with reformatting
> > (changing headers), so let's solve that fast.
> >
> > WBR,
> > Aleksey Bragin.
> >
> > On Oct 3, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Alex Ionescu wrote:
> > > Please show me where the developers of this code agreed to having
> > > their code GPL V3 licensed.
> > >
> > > I would like to see a full trail of every developer that wrote this
> > > code, as well as written permission from them for you to slap on this
> > > license.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > On 23-Sep-08, at 7:45 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > LICENSE:         GPL v2 or later - See COPYING in the top level
> > > >
> > > > directory
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Alex Ionescu
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Best regards,
> Alex Ionescu
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Aleksey Bragin]

From Klemens message to ros-dev (July 2007):
"However, if code is released under GPL "version 2 or later," that is
compatible with GPLv3 because GPLv3 is one of the options it permits."

-- http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility "

The code of csrss module WAS released under "GPL v2 or later", look  
into csrss.c and print.c, and video.c / init.c which did not have GPL  
header pasted into them were initially committed and later modified  
by the same people who did csrss.c and print.c (dwelch, Emanuele).

So, now, how to "fix" the issue? Would "(at your option)" added be good?

As I said 100 times, I *DON'T WANT* a license change (well, now, and  
certainly not in the way of silently changing copyright files), I  
want to keep the same license which the module was released under.

If someone wants to speak about license changing - let's factor it  
into a different thread, because I feel in a few days of discussion  
some random people will pop in and start blaming me as the license  
changer.

Also, if we touched this question, I must say I put "ReactOS  
Development Team" in "PROGRAMMERS:" field of the standard header. But  
since it's also a touchy topic, let's discuss it too. What to write  
in PROGRAMMERS: field - how many lines should one contribute to be  
listed there? It's greatly unmainted in the most of the files.
SVN blame is not a perfect option either.

WBR,
Aleksey Bragin.

On Oct 4, 2008, at 8:44 AM, Alex Ionescu wrote:
> You basically assumed that a header from another file (probably copy-
> pasted) applies to the file you modified.
>
> While I'm certainly being pedantic, and I admit it -- this shouldn't
> be a change to brush over.
>
> Someone needs to figure out if the devs agree with v3 or not -- I
> personally don't so I've removed that from my kernel license.
>
> You explicitly added "or later" to this file.
>
> On 3-Oct-08, at 12:20 PM, Aleksey Bragin wrote:
> > Have a look at the headers other files in this directory has,
> > including "main" csrss.c:
> > This software is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> > modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
> > published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
> > License, or (at your option) any later version.
> >
> > This is where I've got this idea to take "either version 2 of the
> > License, or (at your option) any later version".
> >
> > Or is this the "at your option" clause? But then why is it present in
> > this old header? Whose option is this? The one who wrote? Or the one
> > who reuses?
> >
> > I don't get all the flood on the irc channels related to this. I
> > didn't change license of this component, ffs. If I did - explain me
> > how, and I will acknowledge and fix my mistake (if any). I did the
> > same change for, smss, a few days earlier, also with reformatting
> > (changing headers), so let's solve that fast.
> >
> > WBR,
> > Aleksey Bragin.
> >
> > On Oct 3, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Alex Ionescu wrote:
> > > Please show me where the developers of this code agreed to having
> > > their code GPL V3 licensed.
> > >
> > > I would like to see a full trail of every developer that wrote this
> > > code, as well as written permission from them for you to slap on  
> > > this
> > > license.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > On 23-Sep-08, at 7:45 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > LICENSE:         GPL v2 or later - See COPYING in the top level
> > > >
> > > > directory
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Alex Ionescu
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Best regards,
> Alex Ionescu
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Gregor Gullwi]

Didn't the coding standard document touch this topic also?

-Gregor

Aleksey Bragin wrote:
> Also, if we touched this question, I must say I put "ReactOS  
> Development Team" in "PROGRAMMERS:" field of the standard header. But  
> since it's also a touchy topic, let's discuss it too. What to write  
> in PROGRAMMERS: field - how many lines should one contribute to be  
> listed there? It's greatly unmainted in the most of the files.
> SVN blame is not a perfect option either.

[Steven Edwards]

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Alex Ionescu [e-mail] wrote:
> Please show me where the developers of this code agreed to having their code
> GPL V3 licensed.
>
> I would like to see a full trail of every developer that wrote this code, as
> well as written permission from them for you to slap on this license.

Perhaps its time to have that BSD discussion? =)
-- 
Steven Edwards

"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo

[Zachary Gorden]

I was under the impression Alex explicitly removed the "at your option" part
from the license header he used for his kernel code, because he did not want
to allow changing the license to GPL v3, similar to what Torvald did.

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Steven Edwards [e-mail] wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Alex Ionescu [e-mail] wrote:
> > Please show me where the developers of this code agreed to having their
>
> code
> > GPL V3 licensed.
> >
> > I would like to see a full trail of every developer that wrote this code,
>
> as
> > well as written permission from them for you to slap on this license.
>
> Perhaps its time to have that BSD discussion? =)
>
> --
> Steven Edwards
>
> "There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
> that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
> _______________________________________________
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev