GPLv3 Migration - flamewar warning

[Steven Edwards]

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

[Magnus Olsen]

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(a)gmail.com>
To: <ros-dev(a)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(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Alex Ionescu]

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(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] 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(a)gmail.com>
To: <ros-dev(a)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(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Steven Edwards]

On 7/3/07, Alex Ionescu <ionucu(a)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?

-- 
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

[Thomas Weidenmueller]

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

[Steven Edwards]

Hi,

On 7/3/07, Thomas Weidenmueller <w3seek(a)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.

-- 
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

[Steven Edwards]

On 7/3/07, Steven Edwards <winehacker(a)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.

-- 
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

[CK Raju]

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/EbenMoglenLectureEdinburghJune2007te…

Send free SMS to your Friends on Mobile from your Yahoo! Messenger. Download Now!
http://messenger.yahoo.com/download.php

[CK Raju]

>   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

[CK Raju]

>   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

[Steven Edwards]

On 7/3/07, Magnus Olsen <magnus(a)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

[Klemens Friedl]

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

[Magnus Olsen]

2. Basic Permissions.
    Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10 makes it unnecessary

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven Edwards" <winehacker(a)gmail.com>
To: "ReactOS Development List" <ros-dev(a)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(a)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(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Thomas Weidenmueller]

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

[Jeff Smith]

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

[Samuel serapion]

encoded says: I prefer GPLv2

[Thomas Weidenmueller]

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
>

[Steven Edwards]

On 7/3/07, Thomas Weidenmueller <w3seek(a)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

[Magnus Olsen]

>  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(a)gmail.com>
To: "ReactOS Development List" <ros-dev(a)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(a)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(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Steven Edwards]

On 7/3/07, Magnus Olsen <magnus(a)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.

-- 
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

[James Tabor]

Hi all!
Thomas Weidenmueller wrote:
>   I oppose the GPL3. I think we're fine with the
> GPL2.
>   
Yes, I oppose it too. Stay with v2.

[Ged]

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.