Inkscape license + potential problem
Hello I am wondering under what license Inkscape actually is.
Most source files don't have the full GPL copyright notice which specifies the version, they only say "released under GNU GPL". This would suggest that most of the code is GPLv2+. There are also several files dual-licensed under MPL and GPL. Our Launchpad website states that Inkscape is under GPLv2.
However, I encountered a file which is GPLv3 only, apparently copied from GIMP (src/util/expression-evaluator.cpp). If we really are GPLv2, then including this file is not legal, as GPLv2 is not compatible with GPLv3. We would need to change our license to GPLv3 or GPLv3+ to include this file, or contact the original authors for a GPLv2 or BSD license.
PS: our Windows devlibs also seem to be in a "gray area", because most of the copyright information is not present, which might break the license terms of the libraries. I'll try to remediate this by adding the license files from each package, once I have some spare time (i.e. not very soon).
Regards, Krzysztof
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 13:53 +0200, Krzysztof Kosiński wrote:
Most source files don't have the full GPL copyright notice which specifies the version, they only say "released under GNU GPL". This would suggest that most of the code is GPLv2+. There are also several files dual-licensed under MPL and GPL. Our Launchpad website states that Inkscape is under GPLv2.
There are also some files that claim to be under public domain, and there's some question of whether code can be put into the public domain. I'd say in general, the Inkscape license is ambiguous. :-(
Honestly, the amount of effort to clean that up is pretty large. The SFLC can help us there, and I've talked to them a bit about it, but I'm not sure that the cost/benefit is there. I'm in a bit of a quandary of what direction we should take things in this regard.
--Ted
AFAIK you can relicense public domain source under GPL to reduce ambiguity.
Jevon
2011/6/24 Ted Gould <ted@...11...>:
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 13:53 +0200, Krzysztof Kosiński wrote:
Most source files don't have the full GPL copyright notice which specifies the version, they only say "released under GNU GPL". This would suggest that most of the code is GPLv2+. There are also several files dual-licensed under MPL and GPL. Our Launchpad website states that Inkscape is under GPLv2.
There are also some files that claim to be under public domain, and there's some question of whether code can be put into the public domain. I'd say in general, the Inkscape license is ambiguous. :-(
Honestly, the amount of effort to clean that up is pretty large. The SFLC can help us there, and I've talked to them a bit about it, but I'm not sure that the cost/benefit is there. I'm in a bit of a quandary of what direction we should take things in this regard.
--Ted
Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with vRanger. Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is safe, secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
Public domain + GPL is perfectly OK. There is no ambiguity on that level. The public domain part shall remain as public domain, and anybody can use this portion of the code in any project without any restriction. Then the GPL portion remains GPL, which means there are some rules one has to comply with in order to be able to use it in other projects.
I dont see any ambiguity regarding that. It is perfectly clear. And relicensing that public domain code to GPL is a non-fix for a non-issue.
Felipe Sanches
2011/6/27 Jevon Wright <jevon@...2480...>
AFAIK you can relicense public domain source under GPL to reduce ambiguity.
Jevon
2011/6/24 Ted Gould <ted@...11...>:
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 13:53 +0200, Krzysztof Kosiński wrote:
Most source files don't have the full GPL copyright notice which specifies the version, they only say "released under GNU GPL". This would suggest that most of the code is GPLv2+. There are also several files dual-licensed under MPL and GPL. Our Launchpad website states that Inkscape is under GPLv2.
There are also some files that claim to be under public domain, and there's some question of whether code can be put into the public domain. I'd say in general, the Inkscape license is ambiguous. :-(
Honestly, the amount of effort to clean that up is pretty large. The SFLC can help us there, and I've talked to them a bit about it, but I'm not sure that the cost/benefit is there. I'm in a bit of a quandary of what direction we should take things in this regard.
--Ted
Simplify data backup and recovery for your virtual environment with
vRanger.
Installation's a snap, and flexible recovery options mean your data is
safe,
secure and there when you need it. Data protection magic? Nope - It's vRanger. Get your free trial download today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 _______________________________________________ Inkscape-devel mailing list Inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 11:05 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
and there's some question of whether code can be put into the public domain.
IANAL but I don't think that's true. Anything that can have copyright and thus an owner, can have a public domain declaration and thus be in the public domain.
Your only problem with this code-base is that keeping it public domain requires that all coders who make changes to the code are aware that they're required to release copyright on that part of their code (or the code becomes gpl as soon as it's modified). Which gets messy, nasty and ambiguous.
Best to relicense GPLv2+, but check with the SFLC, they'll know best.
Martin,
Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:00:45 -0400 Martin Owens <doctormo@...400...> kirjoitti:
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 11:05 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
and there's some question of whether code can be put into the public domain.
IANAL but I don't think that's true. Anything that can have copyright and thus an owner, can have a public domain declaration and thus be in the public domain.
Maybe... Wherever the concept of placing your work in public domain exists.
There's a some explanation at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Public_domain
participants (6)
-
Felipe Sanches -
Jevon Wright -
Krzysztof Kosiński -
Martin Owens -
Niko Kiirala -
Ted Gould