Hi, I've been inactive for a while and most likely will be so for a while however I thought this would be a good time to bring up the GPLv3 due to its recent release. Does anyone have any objections to license as it stands now? If you've not had a chance to review it I suggest you do so. I am happy to help answer any questions regarding the license as I did take part in early drafting on behalf of the ReactOS and Wine Projects although I am not a lawyer and anything I say should be at least reviewed by the SFLC or your own lawyers.
It is my suggestion that if there are no objections then we start to contact each developer requesting them to dual license existing code as GPLv2/GPLv3 and use the same tracking system as the audit system to do the migration.
ReactOS has never been really clear on the "or later version" clause in the GPL. The ReactOS license includes the text and the license number is not specified in most of the ReactOS sources, though I don't think it would be fair to simply take all of the source and re-license it without some discussions and a vote.
It would also be possible to distribute ReactOS under both licenses via dual licensing as a possible compromise if a dispute arises. This would mean if some third party (Third Party A) wants to take ReactOS enhance it and then resell it, they would not have to worry about another third party (Third Party B) taking their modifications and redistributing them for profit without the patent protections of the GPLv3 and the Anti-Tivoization clauses. The only downside to this is if Third Party A is only making changes under GPLv3 then those changes could not go back in to ReactOS trunk. I don't think this is a major issue, as I expect both third parties to be proprietary vendors making enhancements that the Project might not want/need in the trunk in any case. Third Party A in the interest of keeping forking to a minimal would still send bug fixes back up both licenses.
Thanks
Start with read the fucking GPL v3 Section/paragraph 2 NO DUAL LISCEN ARE ALLOWN WITH GPL V3 --------------------------------------------------------
GPL V3 Can go some where in the trachcan (I DO not DARE use stronger word)
A COMMANDY CAN RELEASE OBJECT FILE AS SOURCE CODE INSTEAD FOR HUMAN READING TEXT FILE IN GPL V3
and alot other shit.
I will refuse go over to GPL V3
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Edwards" winehacker@gmail.com To: ros-dev@reactos.org Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 8:14 PM Subject: [ros-dev] GPLv3 Migration - flamewar warning
Hi, I've been inactive for a while and most likely will be so for a while however I thought this would be a good time to bring up the GPLv3 due to its recent release. Does anyone have any objections to license as it stands now? If you've not had a chance to review it I suggest you do so. I am happy to help answer any questions regarding the license as I did take part in early drafting on behalf of the ReactOS and Wine Projects although I am not a lawyer and anything I say should be at least reviewed by the SFLC or your own lawyers.
It is my suggestion that if there are no objections then we start to contact each developer requesting them to dual license existing code as GPLv2/GPLv3 and use the same tracking system as the audit system to do the migration.
ReactOS has never been really clear on the "or later version" clause in the GPL. The ReactOS license includes the text and the license number is not specified in most of the ReactOS sources, though I don't think it would be fair to simply take all of the source and re-license it without some discussions and a vote.
It would also be possible to distribute ReactOS under both licenses via dual licensing as a possible compromise if a dispute arises. This would mean if some third party (Third Party A) wants to take ReactOS enhance it and then resell it, they would not have to worry about another third party (Third Party B) taking their modifications and redistributing them for profit without the patent protections of the GPLv3 and the Anti-Tivoization clauses. The only downside to this is if Third Party A is only making changes under GPLv3 then those changes could not go back in to ReactOS trunk. I don't think this is a major issue, as I expect both third parties to be proprietary vendors making enhancements that the Project might not want/need in the trunk in any case. Third Party A in the interest of keeping forking to a minimal would still send bug fixes back up both licenses.
Thanks
-- 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 Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Dude, you're my hero.
I also refuse to license any of my code to GPL 3.
-- Best regards, Alex Ionescu
-----Original Message----- From: ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org [mailto:ros-dev-bounces@reactos.org] On Behalf Of Magnus Olsen Sent: July 3, 2007 11:40 AM To: ReactOS Development List Subject: Re: [ros-dev] GPLv3 Migration - flamewar warning
Start with read the fucking GPL v3 Section/paragraph 2 NO DUAL LISCEN ARE ALLOWN WITH GPL V3 --------------------------------------------------------
GPL V3 Can go some where in the trachcan (I DO not DARE use stronger word)
A COMMANDY CAN RELEASE OBJECT FILE AS SOURCE CODE INSTEAD FOR HUMAN READING TEXT FILE IN GPL V3
and alot other shit.
I will refuse go over to GPL V3
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Edwards" winehacker@gmail.com To: ros-dev@reactos.org Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 8:14 PM Subject: [ros-dev] GPLv3 Migration - flamewar warning
Hi, I've been inactive for a while and most likely will be so for a while however I thought this would be a good time to bring up the GPLv3 due to its recent release. Does anyone have any objections to license as it stands now? If you've not had a chance to review it I suggest you do so. I am happy to help answer any questions regarding the license as I did take part in early drafting on behalf of the ReactOS and Wine Projects although I am not a lawyer and anything I say should be at least reviewed by the SFLC or your own lawyers.
It is my suggestion that if there are no objections then we start to contact each developer requesting them to dual license existing code as GPLv2/GPLv3 and use the same tracking system as the audit system to do the migration.
ReactOS has never been really clear on the "or later version" clause in the GPL. The ReactOS license includes the text and the license number is not specified in most of the ReactOS sources, though I don't think it would be fair to simply take all of the source and re-license it without some discussions and a vote.
It would also be possible to distribute ReactOS under both licenses via dual licensing as a possible compromise if a dispute arises. This would mean if some third party (Third Party A) wants to take ReactOS enhance it and then resell it, they would not have to worry about another third party (Third Party B) taking their modifications and redistributing them for profit without the patent protections of the GPLv3 and the Anti-Tivoization clauses. The only downside to this is if Third Party A is only making changes under GPLv3 then those changes could not go back in to ReactOS trunk. I don't think this is a major issue, as I expect both third parties to be proprietary vendors making enhancements that the Project might not want/need in the trunk in any case. Third Party A in the interest of keeping forking to a minimal would still send bug fixes back up both licenses.
Thanks
-- 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 Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
On 7/3/07, Alex Ionescu ionucu@videotron.ca wrote:
I also refuse to license any of my code to GPL 3.
What objections do you have the current license as opposed to the gplv2?
Alex Ionescu wrote:
I also refuse to license any of my code to GPL 3.
While you (and I) may not want to do this, anybody else is free to license our code under the GPL 3 because we explicitly granted them the right to do this. The question is just whether we (the original authors) want to switch to version 3 ;)
"If the Library 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 Library does not specify a license version number, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation."
- Thomas
Hi,
On 7/3/07, Thomas Weidenmueller w3seek@reactos.com wrote:
While you (and I) may not want to do this, anybody else is free to license our code under the GPL 3 because we explicitly granted them the right to do this. The question is just whether we (the original authors) want to switch to version 3 ;)
From COPYING in the ReactOS tree which is the GPLv2
"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."
ReactOS never seems to have specified 'and "or later version"' to my knowledge which is why I ask.
On 7/3/07, Steven Edwards winehacker@gmail.com wrote:
ReactOS never seems to have specified 'and "or later version"' to my knowledge which is why I ask.
Sorry 'and "any later version"' I keep write or rather than "any". It seems to be opt-in rather than automatic which is fine. Even if the ReactOS project does not want to relicense or dual license I think each major contributor should make it clear that they are opting-in to the "any later version" clause so that if someone else wants to bundle an aggregate work as GPLv3 they can.
When a new author wants to mix certain parts of code from multiple sources of various versions of GPLed software, the decision to release the final code is strongly dependent on the release versions of the pieces of code from where they have been picked from.
Thus an author who picks up parts of code from a GPL3 source and mixes it any other version has to necessarily release the resultant code in GPL3.
The spirit with GPL3 here is to enforce that no public code released in GPL3 can ever be in the private domain.
The current debate, I am afraid, is focussed wrongly. CK Raju India ----------- Eben Moglen's (principal brain behind GPL3 *project*) last pre-release speech can be found here. I recommend multiple-reading of the article to dispel any remaining doubt. http://ia301337.us.archive.org/1/items/EbenMoglenLectureEdinburghJune2007tex...
Send free SMS to your Friends on Mobile from your Yahoo! Messenger. Download Now! http://messenger.yahoo.com/download.php
When a new author wants to mix certain parts of code
And here is the compatibility chart. http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq
CK Raju India
Send free SMS to your Friends on Mobile from your Yahoo! Messenger. Download Now! http://messenger.yahoo.com/download.php
Thus an author who picks up parts of code from a GPL3 source and mixes it any other version has to necessarily release the resultant code in GPL3.
The exception in the compatibility matrix is that one cannot combine codes from *GPLv2 only* and have it released in GPL3; nor obtain code released under GPL3 for modifying *GPLv2 only* code.
In both these cases, whenever the requirement of mixing becomes imminent, the original authors (single or multiple) who have released their code in *GPLv2 only* has/have to upgrade the license to either *GPLv2 or later* or to *GPL3*.
CK Raju
Send free SMS to your Friends on Mobile from your Yahoo! Messenger. Download Now! http://messenger.yahoo.com/download.php
On 7/3/07, Magnus Olsen magnus@greatlord.com wrote:
Start with read the fucking GPL v3 Section/paragraph 2 NO DUAL LISCEN ARE ALLOWN WITH GPL V3
Can you point this out to me? Maybe I miss-read it but as far as my understanding goes you as the copyright holder can release mulitple copies under whatever license you wish. I cannot find anything regarding this subject.
Thanks
For the sake of completeness ...
"Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?
No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As a result, the licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released under both these licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2.
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
2. Basic Permissions. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10 makes it unnecessary
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Edwards" winehacker@gmail.com To: "ReactOS Development List" ros-dev@reactos.org Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:14 PM Subject: Re: [ros-dev] GPLv3 Migration - flamewar warning
On 7/3/07, Magnus Olsen magnus@greatlord.com wrote:
Start with read the fucking GPL v3 Section/paragraph 2 NO DUAL LISCEN ARE ALLOWN WITH GPL V3
Can you point this out to me? Maybe I miss-read it but as far as my understanding goes you as the copyright holder can release mulitple copies under whatever license you wish. I cannot find anything regarding this subject.
Thanks
-- 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 Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Magnus Olsen wrote:
Start with read the fucking GPL v3 Section/paragraph 2 NO DUAL LISCEN ARE ALLOWN WITH GPL V3
GPL V3 Can go some where in the trachcan (I DO not DARE use stronger word)
A COMMANDY CAN RELEASE OBJECT FILE AS SOURCE CODE INSTEAD FOR HUMAN READING TEXT FILE IN GPL V3
and alot other shit.
I will refuse go over to GPL V3
How about grabbing a dictionary and searching for appropriate words instead? Interestingly, "fucking" and "shit" was spelled correctly. And while we're at it, I'm sure your email client has a spell checker.
Personally, I think the GPL3 is a good license for many projects - but not for all. And it's still everybody's own decision whether the license is appropriate for them or not. In ReactOS' case, I personally think that it's not a good choice.
- Thomas
Steven Edwards wrote:
Hi, I've been inactive for a while and most likely will be so for a while however I thought this would be a good time to bring up the GPLv3 due to its recent release. Does anyone have any objections to license as it stands now? If you've not had a chance to review it I suggest you do so. I am happy to help answer any questions regarding the license as I did take part in early drafting on behalf of the ReactOS and Wine Projects although I am not a lawyer and anything I say should be at least reviewed by the SFLC or your own lawyers.
It is my suggestion that if there are no objections then we start to contact each developer requesting them to dual license existing code as GPLv2/GPLv3 and use the same tracking system as the audit system to do the migration.
ReactOS has never been really clear on the "or later version" clause in the GPL. The ReactOS license includes the text and the license number is not specified in most of the ReactOS sources, though I don't think it would be fair to simply take all of the source and re-license it without some discussions and a vote.
It would also be possible to distribute ReactOS under both licenses via dual licensing as a possible compromise if a dispute arises. This would mean if some third party (Third Party A) wants to take ReactOS enhance it and then resell it, they would not have to worry about another third party (Third Party B) taking their modifications and redistributing them for profit without the patent protections of the GPLv3 and the Anti-Tivoization clauses. The only downside to this is if Third Party A is only making changes under GPLv3 then those changes could not go back in to ReactOS trunk. I don't think this is a major issue, as I expect both third parties to be proprietary vendors making enhancements that the Project might not want/need in the trunk in any case. Third Party A in the interest of keeping forking to a minimal would still send bug fixes back up both licenses.
Thanks
I'm not going to pretend I'm familiar with GPL V3, but if memory serves Linus Torvalds had issues with this atleast at the start, have these been taken care of or do those concerns effect ReactOS? -Beta-guy
I oppose the GPL3. I think we're fine with the GPL2.
Version 3 just adds even more restrictions. If anyone likes to fork ReactOS, they're free to license it under version 3, as the GPL2 license clearly states that any subsequent version of the GPL can be applied, too. But applying the GPL2 on GPL3 code doesn't work. That's why I believe we shouldn't switch to GPL3.
I don't think it makes sense to dual-license our code. If anyone finds the GPL3 too restrictive, then they're just going to pick the GPL2 anyway. It'd just influence work derived from derived work, that would be prevented from switching from GPL3 to GPL2. Since everybody is free to license any ReactOS code under the GPL3, that already a possibility.
I believe we've been very clear on the "or later version" clause. That's what the license says, and that's the rights we grant everybody.
Especially ReactOS should remain open to patent-related issues, at least allowing derived work to deal with patent issues.
Of course GPL3 code cannot go back into trunk unless it remains an independent part, ie. a stand-alone application, etc. That's the only downside I see. I think we only have to really think about switching to GPL3 in case WINE switches to it.
- Thomas
Steven Edwards wrote:
Hi, I've been inactive for a while and most likely will be so for a while however I thought this would be a good time to bring up the GPLv3 due to its recent release. Does anyone have any objections to license as it stands now? If you've not had a chance to review it I suggest you do so. I am happy to help answer any questions regarding the license as I did take part in early drafting on behalf of the ReactOS and Wine Projects although I am not a lawyer and anything I say should be at least reviewed by the SFLC or your own lawyers.
It is my suggestion that if there are no objections then we start to contact each developer requesting them to dual license existing code as GPLv2/GPLv3 and use the same tracking system as the audit system to do the migration.
ReactOS has never been really clear on the "or later version" clause in the GPL. The ReactOS license includes the text and the license number is not specified in most of the ReactOS sources, though I don't think it would be fair to simply take all of the source and re-license it without some discussions and a vote.
It would also be possible to distribute ReactOS under both licenses via dual licensing as a possible compromise if a dispute arises. This would mean if some third party (Third Party A) wants to take ReactOS enhance it and then resell it, they would not have to worry about another third party (Third Party B) taking their modifications and redistributing them for profit without the patent protections of the GPLv3 and the Anti-Tivoization clauses. The only downside to this is if Third Party A is only making changes under GPLv3 then those changes could not go back in to ReactOS trunk. I don't think this is a major issue, as I expect both third parties to be proprietary vendors making enhancements that the Project might not want/need in the trunk in any case. Third Party A in the interest of keeping forking to a minimal would still send bug fixes back up both licenses.
Thanks
On 7/3/07, Thomas Weidenmueller w3seek@reactos.com wrote:
I believe we've been very clear on the "or later version" clause. That's what the license says, and that's the rights we grant everybody.
That's partly why I ask.
Especially ReactOS should remain open to patent-related issues, at least allowing derived work to deal with patent issues.
Of course GPL3 code cannot go back into trunk unless it remains an independent part, ie. a stand-alone application, etc. That's the only downside I see. I think we only have to really think about switching to GPL3 in case WINE switches to it.
And this is the other part. There was a situation come up with Wine recently where the LGPLv3 would have served better than the LGPLv2 due to the termination clause in the v2 not giving a grace period for non-compliance. At some point Wine will get LGPLv3 I expect of for no other reason, then to clear up the problem of immediate license termination due to an inadvertent violation.
Steven Edwards termination due to an inadvertent violation
if u read GPL v3 a terminations clause exists and it look same as GPL v3
I have not look at lgpl v3
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Edwards" winehacker@gmail.com To: "ReactOS Development List" ros-dev@reactos.org Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:25 PM Subject: Re: [ros-dev] GPLv3 Migration - flamewar warning
On 7/3/07, Thomas Weidenmueller w3seek@reactos.com wrote:
I believe we've been very clear on the "or later version" clause. That's what the license says, and that's the rights we grant everybody.
That's partly why I ask.
Especially ReactOS should remain open to patent-related issues, at least allowing derived work to deal with patent issues.
Of course GPL3 code cannot go back into trunk unless it remains an independent part, ie. a stand-alone application, etc. That's the only downside I see. I think we only have to really think about switching to GPL3 in case WINE switches to it.
And this is the other part. There was a situation come up with Wine recently where the LGPLv3 would have served better than the LGPLv2 due to the termination clause in the v2 not giving a grace period for non-compliance. At some point Wine will get LGPLv3 I expect of for no other reason, then to clear up the problem of immediate license termination due to an inadvertent violation.
-- 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 Ros-dev@reactos.org http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
On 7/3/07, Magnus Olsen magnus@greatlord.com wrote:
if u read GPL v3 a terminations clause exists and it look same as GPL v3
Section 8 allows 30 and 60 day grace periods for license violation. GPLv2 and LGPLv2 did not. This is very important for inadvertent violations in projects like ReactOS with multiple copyright holders.
Thomas Weidenmueller wrote:
I think we only have to really think about switching to GPL3 in case WINE switches to it.
Yes, if Wine switches, then we need to look at relicencing areas of our code. Obvious candicates will be the Win32 subsystem dlls, but Wine code extends beyond these areas.
Personally, I'm not overly concerned over which licence we use, I'll go with the majority decision.
Ged.
-
Alex Ionescu -
CK Raju -
Ged -
James Tabor -
Jeff Smith -
Klemens Friedl -
Magnus Olsen -
Samuel serapion -
Steven Edwards -
Thomas Weidenmueller