11:59 a.m.
Hello board,
Section 9 of GNU GPL says:
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.
Almost all of our files say "released under GNU GPL" without
specifying the version; thus they are effectively under GPL v1+. The
only offenders I've identified are:
src/xml/quote.cpp
src/main-cmdlineact.h
src/main-cmdlineact.cpp
src/live_effects/lpe-jointype.h
src/live_effects/lpe-jointype.cpp
which are GPL v2 only. If we rewrote those files or contacted the
authors to release under GPL v2+, we could change the advertised
license from GPL v2 to GPL v2+. What do you think?
Best regards, Krzysztof
12:10 p.m.
On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 18:59 -0800, Krzysztof Kosiński wrote:
which are GPL v2 only. If we rewrote those files or contacted the
authors to release under GPL v2+, we could change the advertised
license from GPL v2 to GPL v2+. What do you think?
This is a very good idea. I don't like the idea of the code base being
unsure with it's licensing and having surprise files is a headache.
Martin Owens
4:08 p.m.
2015-11-26 19:10 GMT-08:00 Martin Owens <doctormo@...23...>:
On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 18:59 -0800, Krzysztof Kosiński wrote:
> which are GPL v2 only. If we rewrote those files or contacted the
> authors to release under GPL v2+, we could change the advertised
> license from GPL v2 to GPL v2+. What do you think?
This is a very good idea. I don't like the idea of the code base being
unsure with it's licensing and having surprise files is a headache.
OK, I rewrote src/xml/quote.cpp and sent e-mails to the authors of the
remaining files. We could very realistically declare GPL v2+ next
release, and backporting the quote.cpp file cloud also do it for the
0.91.1 point release.
We actually have two bits of GPL v3 only code imported from Gimp: the
expression evaluator and the spin-scale widget. Thus the current
version of Inkscape technically violates the GPL, and the upcoming
versions should be distributed as GPL v3+. As the next step, we should
either ask the authors of those two files to release them under GPL
v2+ or reimplement them.
Best regards, Krzysztof
12:17 a.m.
On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 23:08 -0800, Krzysztof Kosiński wrote:
We actually have two bits of GPL v3 only code imported from Gimp:
the
expression evaluator and the spin-scale widget. Thus the current
version of Inkscape technically violates the GPL, and the upcoming
versions should be distributed as GPL v3+. As the next step, we should
either ask the authors of those two files to release them under GPL
v2+ or reimplement them.
Is the GPLv3+ a problem for us for releases?
Should we have a think if we want to transition to GPLv3 at this point?
Martin,
7:29 a.m.
2015-11-27 7:17 GMT-08:00 Martin Owens <doctormo@...23...>:
On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 23:08 -0800, Krzysztof Kosiński wrote:
> We actually have two bits of GPL v3 only code imported from Gimp: the
> expression evaluator and the spin-scale widget. Thus the current
> version of Inkscape technically violates the GPL, and the upcoming
> versions should be distributed as GPL v3+. As the next step, we should
> either ask the authors of those two files to release them under GPL
> v2+ or reimplement them.
Is the GPLv3+ a problem for us for releases?
Formally, we can't distribute GPLv3 code under GPLv2, so releases that
contain that code violate the GPL. In practice, I doubt anyone from
GIMP would complain (and copyright law is a civil matter, so there
can't be any legal action as long as the owner is OK with it). But we
should rectify this as soon as possible.
Should we have a think if we want to transition to GPLv3 at this
point?
GPLv3 has some additional patent protections so that no one can
knowingly poison your code with something patented and then litigate
against you, which could be useful, but on the other hand it requires
any code that is incorporated into a device to be modifiable by the
user. I think this should ultimately be up to the community.
Best regards, Krzysztof
6:36 p.m.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:17:29AM -0500, Martin Owens wrote:
On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 23:08 -0800, Krzysztof Kosiński wrote:
> We actually have two bits of GPL v3 only code imported from Gimp: the
> expression evaluator and the spin-scale widget. Thus the current
> version of Inkscape technically violates the GPL, and the upcoming
> versions should be distributed as GPL v3+. As the next step, we should
> either ask the authors of those two files to release them under GPL
> v2+ or reimplement them.
Is the GPLv3+ a problem for us for releases?
Should we have a think if we want to transition to GPLv3 at this point?
Josh, Jon, and I pondered on this a bit back when RMS raised the issue.
IIRC the major practical reason for favoring GPLv3+ would be if we
wanted to pull in code that was licensed as GPLv3+, but we didn't
identify anything super compelling.
Most of our other peer projects are GPLv2+, so we maximize ability to
share our code to them by adopting that. I seem to recall there were a
couple other reasons favoring GPLv2+ beyond that but I'm not remembering
what they were.
Bryce
6:28 p.m.
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 06:59:51PM -0800, Krzysztof Kosiński wrote:
Hello board,
Section 9 of GNU GPL says:
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.
Almost all of our files say "released under GNU GPL" without
specifying the version; thus they are effectively under GPL v1+. The
only offenders I've identified are:
src/xml/quote.cpp
src/main-cmdlineact.h
src/main-cmdlineact.cpp
src/live_effects/lpe-jointype.h
src/live_effects/lpe-jointype.cpp
which are GPL v2 only. If we rewrote those files or contacted the
authors to release under GPL v2+, we could change the advertised
license from GPL v2 to GPL v2+. What do you think?
RMS contacted me about this situation with inconsistent GPL licensing
earlier this year. It's good to get the licensing cleaned up to be
GPLv2, thanks for undertaking the effort. It'll be good to have this
straightened out for the release.
Bryce
Best regards, Krzysztof
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-board mailing list
Inkscape-board(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-board
2738
days inactive
2740
days old
inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org
6 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Bryce Harrington -
Krzysztof Kosiński -
Martin Owens