12:20 p.m.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Dave Crossland wrote:
Hi!
Does anyone know when the next release will be?
Yes, the god of your choice :)
Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
12:30 p.m.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Dave Crossland <dave@...1555...> wrote:
Hi!
Does anyone know when the next release will be?
There is no schedule in place and we are unable to propose one until
we have a good handle on our licensing situation. Let's just say our
licensing is messy at the moment and we can't release until we get it
sorted. I had asked the board about it and will follow up.
Cheers,
Josh
6:56 p.m.
Hey,
It's not as well documented as it should be. In the meantime if anyone
wants to create a wiki page to try and document all licenses in the
codebase, that would be a decent start.
For anyone that is curious, the board discussion thread regarding the
issue is:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=20120629180548.G...
Cheers,
Josh
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Dave Crossland <dave@...1555...> wrote:
Hi
Oh wow. Is this issue documented anywhere? Curious :-)
Cheers
Dave
7:01 p.m.
Hi
Yikes! What a problem. I suggest raising money from the front page to
hire someone to sort that out! :-)
Cheers
Dave
7:43 p.m.
Afaik there was also an issue with pixman/cairo bitmap downsampling that
could be potentially a release-blocking regression.
Did the board decide something regarding that problem?
Gez.
8:02 p.m.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Guillermo Espertino (Gez)
<gespertino@...400...> wrote:
Afaik there was also an issue with pixman/cairo bitmap downsampling
that
could be potentially a release-blocking regression.
Did the board decide something regarding that problem?
Yes, that is still an issue as far as I am aware. However, that's a
much more easily solvable problem to fix. It's also not the board's
realm to deal with normal problems that the developer community can
more easily straighten out. Honestly, we probably have a few other
current blockers bugs as well.
In the end though, the licensing situation is really a much bigger and
more complicated problem that will probably require getting legal
counsel involved.
Cheers,
Josh
11:52 a.m.
2012/7/24 Josh Andler <scislac@...400...>:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Guillermo Espertino (Gez)
<gespertino@...400...> wrote:
> Afaik there was also an issue with pixman/cairo bitmap downsampling that
> could be potentially a release-blocking regression.
> Did the board decide something regarding that problem?
Yes, that is still an issue as far as I am aware. However, that's a
much more easily solvable problem to fix. It's also not the board's
realm to deal with normal problems that the developer community can
more easily straighten out. Honestly, we probably have a few other
current blockers bugs as well.
In the end though, the licensing situation is really a much bigger and
more complicated problem that will probably require getting legal
counsel involved.
Most files are annotated as 'released under GNU GPL' and point to the
COPYING file for license information, without specifying the license
version. Is it safe to assume this means 'GPL v2 or later'? I guess it
would be up to the legal counsel to find this out.
The feature of calculations in spinboxes uses GPL v3 code from GIMP.
This can only stay in the next release if we really are GPL v2 or
later, and needs to be behind a compile-time switch, because some
people might want to use Inkscape under GPL v2.
Regards, Krzysztof
1:32 p.m.
On 25 Jul 2012, at 12:52, Krzysztof Kosiński <tweenk.pl@...400...> wrote:
2012/7/24 Josh Andler <scislac@...400...>:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Guillermo Espertino (Gez)
> <gespertino@...400...> wrote:
>> Afaik there was also an issue with pixman/cairo bitmap downsampling that
>> could be potentially a release-blocking regression.
>> Did the board decide something regarding that problem?
>
> Yes, that is still an issue as far as I am aware. However, that's a
> much more easily solvable problem to fix. It's also not the board's
> realm to deal with normal problems that the developer community can
> more easily straighten out. Honestly, we probably have a few other
> current blockers bugs as well.
>
> In the end though, the licensing situation is really a much bigger and
> more complicated problem that will probably require getting legal
> counsel involved.
Most files are annotated as 'released under GNU GPL' and point to the
COPYING file for license information, without specifying the license
version. Is it safe to assume this means 'GPL v2 or later'? I guess it
would be up to the legal counsel to find this out.
The feature of calculations in spinboxes uses GPL v3 code from GIMP.
This can only stay in the next release if we really are GPL v2 or
later, and needs to be behind a compile-time switch, because some
people might want to use Inkscape under GPL v2.
Regards, Krzysztof
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless we can get permission for that code to be released on a v2 license? May be easier
than trying to get the rest of the code base v3...
8:09 p.m.
New subject: Next release's license?
On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 13:52 +0200, Krzysztof Kosiński wrote:
because some
people might want to use Inkscape under GPL v2.
The GPL only applies to you if you are distributing the licensed work,
not if you're using it. That's why it's called a copyright license and
not a use-it-right license.
And are people really that paranoid about the GPLv3? On reading, it's a
good improvement over v2, the only reason why people would be trying to
move away from it would be if they'd been infected with some sort of
curious meme.
in any case, retaining the four freedoms and maintaining the copyleft
are the most important principles; the exact license isn't very
important in the grand scheme.
Martin,
7:15 p.m.
New subject: Next release's license?
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Martin Owens <doctormo@...400...> wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 13:52 +0200, Krzysztof Kosiński wrote:
> because some
> people might want to use Inkscape under GPL v2.
The GPL only applies to you if you are distributing the licensed work,
not if you're using it. That's why it's called a copyright license and
not a use-it-right license.
And are people really that paranoid about the GPLv3? On reading, it's a
good improvement over v2, the only reason why people would be trying to
move away from it would be if they'd been infected with some sort of
curious meme.
in any case, retaining the four freedoms and maintaining the copyleft
are the most important principles; the exact license isn't very
important in the grand scheme.
Okay, I should shut up and be doing vacationy stuff, and will start
after this...
I talked with Bradley from the SFC and it sounds like as long as all
licenses are compatible, the project/releases would become GPLv3 but
the "GPLv2 and later" licensed files don't need to change. If people
want to use those v2 in other v2 or compatible projects, it's all
good. I personally think putting in compile time flags to make it only
use v2 code is not worth any core developers time... if a third party
(or any project member) feel strongly enough to put something forth a
patch or commit, that's all good for them. I just don't know that as a
project we'd really want to maintain a compile time flag like that.
Martin, as mentioned in the board thread (which I don't know if you
read or not), the freedoms thing is indeed the biggest concern, not
the specific license.
It's sounding like now it's just looking to see if there are any files
which are explicitly v2 only or otherwise not compatible with v3. I
won't have a chance to look into this until after after the 6th.
Anyone else that wants to take it one prior to that is more than
welcome to (as mentioned though, I was already planning on doing so...
even the old fashioned way of looking in every file manually).
Bradley will be contacting the board/committee to discuss things with
us. Note: Aside from the freedoms thing and not caring about the
license... we also don't want to have the project come across as being
ambivalent towards licensing. We're not that paranoid or worried, we
just would prefer to have our i's dotted and t's crossed... we are a
member organization of the SFC and it's just smart that we utilize
their services and get their guidance to ensure we're steering things
in the right direction.
Anyway... I hope you all enjoy the next couple weeks and I will be
back in contact in the near future.
Cheers,
Josh
9:05 p.m.
New subject: Next release's license?
On 26 July 2012 20:15, Josh Andler <scislac@...400...> wrote:
Anyone else that wants to take it one prior to that is more than
welcome to (as mentioned though, I was already planning on doing so...
even the old fashioned way of looking in every file manually).
Is anyone is interested in doing this?
5:37 a.m.
New subject: Next release's license?
On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 21:05 +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
Is anyone is interested in doing this?
Looking at each file's headers or the commit log?
Using a modified checklicense script, I've pulled the attached
statistics.
There is a lot of cleanup required for all these files... someone with
commit access needs to go through and clean up some of these obvious
problems.
Especially worrying are all the files without copyright headers at all,
especially those in ./src (mostly headers though).
2 CMakeScripts,*No copyright* GENERATED FILE
1 CMakeScripts,*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)
70 cxxtest/cxxtest,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
1 cxxtest/docs,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
4 cxxtest,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
1 cxxtest/sample/gui,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
14 cxxtest/sample/mock,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
1 cxxtest/sample/mock/T,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
18 cxxtest/sample,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
1 cxxtest/sample/winddk,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
1 ./,LGPL (v2.1 or later)
1 ./,*No copyright* GENERATED FILE
2 ./,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
6 packaging/macosx,GPL (v2 from COPYING)
1 packaging/macosx/Resources/bin,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
1
packaging/macosx/Resources/themes/Clearlooks-Quicksilver-OSX/gtk-2.0/Scrollbars_1,*No
copyright* UNKNOWN
1
packaging/macosx/Resources/themes/Clearlooks-Quicksilver-OSX/gtk-2.0/Scrollbars_6,*No
copyright* UNKNOWN
1 packaging/macosx/ScriptExec,GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect
FSF address)
4 po,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
2 share/attributes,*No copyright* GENERATED FILE
2 share/attributes,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
6 share/extensions,Apache (v2.0)
28 share/extensions/Barcode,GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address)
2 share/extensions,BSD (3 clause)
2 share/extensions,GENERATED FILE
2 share/extensions,GPL (v2 from COPYING)
24 share/extensions,GPL (v2 or later)
2 share/extensions,GPL (v2 or later) GENERATED FILE
168 share/extensions,GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
24 share/extensions,GPL (v3 or later)
4 share/extensions/ink2canvas,GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect
FSF address)
1 share/extensions/ink2canvas,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
10 share/extensions,MIT/X11 (BSD like)
2 share/extensions,*No copyright* GENERATED FILE
82 share/extensions,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
78 share/extensions/test,*No copyright* GENERATED FILE
18 share/extensions/test,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
4 share/extensions/test,UNKNOWN
4 share/extensions,UNKNOWN
14 share/extensions/xaml2svg,MIT/X11 (BSD like)
4 share/filters,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
1 share/palettes,*No copyright* GENERATED FILE
2 share/palettes,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
1 share/patterns,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
93 src/2geom,MPL (v1.1)
18 src/2geom,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
4 src/2geom,UNKNOWN
1 src,GENERATED FILE
296 src,GPL (v2 from COPYING)
5 src,GPL (v2 or later)
3 src,LGPL (v2.1 or later)
8 src,MPL (v1.1) GPL (unversioned/unknown version)
9 src,*No copyright* GPL (v2 from COPYING)
1 src,*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address)
130 src,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
27 src,UNKNOWN
Raw Data: http://paste.ubuntu.com/1113233/
Martin,
5:40 a.m.
New subject: Next release's license?
Addendum - Breakdown totals:
377 *No copyright* UNKNOWN
304 GPL (v2 from COPYING)
201 GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
93 MPL (v1.1)
86 *No copyright* GENERATED FILE
39 UNKNOWN
29 GPL (v2 or later)
24 MIT/X11 (BSD like)
24 GPL (v3 or later)
9 *No copyright* GPL (v2 from COPYING)
8 MPL (v1.1) GPL (unversioned/unknown version)
6 Apache (v2.0)
4 LGPL (v2.1 or later)
3 GENERATED FILE
2 GPL (v2 or later) GENERATED FILE
2 BSD (3 clause)
1 *No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
1 *No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)
Martin,
On Fri, 2012-07-27 at 01:37 -0400, Martin Owens wrote:
On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 21:05 +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
>
> Is anyone is interested in doing this?
Looking at each file's headers or the commit log?
Using a modified checklicense script, I've pulled the attached
statistics.
There is a lot of cleanup required for all these files... someone with
commit access needs to go through and clean up some of these obvious
problems.
Especially worrying are all the files without copyright headers at all,
especially those in ./src (mostly headers though).
2 CMakeScripts,*No copyright* GENERATED FILE
1 CMakeScripts,*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)
70 cxxtest/cxxtest,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
1 cxxtest/docs,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
4 cxxtest,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
1 cxxtest/sample/gui,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
14 cxxtest/sample/mock,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
1 cxxtest/sample/mock/T,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
18 cxxtest/sample,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
1 cxxtest/sample/winddk,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
1 ./,LGPL (v2.1 or later)
1 ./,*No copyright* GENERATED FILE
2 ./,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
6 packaging/macosx,GPL (v2 from COPYING)
1 packaging/macosx/Resources/bin,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
1
packaging/macosx/Resources/themes/Clearlooks-Quicksilver-OSX/gtk-2.0/Scrollbars_1,*No
copyright* UNKNOWN
1
packaging/macosx/Resources/themes/Clearlooks-Quicksilver-OSX/gtk-2.0/Scrollbars_6,*No
copyright* UNKNOWN
1 packaging/macosx/ScriptExec,GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect
FSF address)
4 po,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
2 share/attributes,*No copyright* GENERATED FILE
2 share/attributes,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
6 share/extensions,Apache (v2.0)
28 share/extensions/Barcode,GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address)
2 share/extensions,BSD (3 clause)
2 share/extensions,GENERATED FILE
2 share/extensions,GPL (v2 from COPYING)
24 share/extensions,GPL (v2 or later)
2 share/extensions,GPL (v2 or later) GENERATED FILE
168 share/extensions,GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
24 share/extensions,GPL (v3 or later)
4 share/extensions/ink2canvas,GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect
FSF address)
1 share/extensions/ink2canvas,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
10 share/extensions,MIT/X11 (BSD like)
2 share/extensions,*No copyright* GENERATED FILE
82 share/extensions,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
78 share/extensions/test,*No copyright* GENERATED FILE
18 share/extensions/test,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
4 share/extensions/test,UNKNOWN
4 share/extensions,UNKNOWN
14 share/extensions/xaml2svg,MIT/X11 (BSD like)
4 share/filters,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
1 share/palettes,*No copyright* GENERATED FILE
2 share/palettes,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
1 share/patterns,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
93 src/2geom,MPL (v1.1)
18 src/2geom,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
4 src/2geom,UNKNOWN
1 src,GENERATED FILE
296 src,GPL (v2 from COPYING)
5 src,GPL (v2 or later)
3 src,LGPL (v2.1 or later)
8 src,MPL (v1.1) GPL (unversioned/unknown version)
9 src,*No copyright* GPL (v2 from COPYING)
1 src,*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address)
130 src,*No copyright* UNKNOWN
27 src,UNKNOWN
Raw Data: http://paste.ubuntu.com/1113233/
Martin,
10:34 a.m.
New subject: Next release's license?
Hi!
On 27 July 2012 06:37, Martin Owens <doctormo@...400...> wrote:
On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 21:05 +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
>
> Is anyone is interested in doing this?
Looking at each file's headers or the commit log?
Using a modified checklicense script, I've pulled the attached
statistics.
Wow, that's AWESOME :-) Great work Martin! :-D
Especially worrying are all the files without copyright headers at
all,
especially those in ./src (mostly headers though).
I believe the release-blocking problem is what Josh said, getting
permission to change any files which are explicitly v2 only or
otherwise not compatible with v3 into v2-or-later or otherwise v3
compatibility.
While serious, I think the lack of copyright notices isn't a release
blocker, because copyright adheres without notices, and version
control (specifically `bzr qlog` and `bzr qannotate`) will reveal who
the copyright holders are (and that may be more reliable than notices
in the text files.)
I think its most problematic that the COPYING file is just the GPLv2
text - http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~inkscape.dev/inkscape/trunk/view/head:/COPYING
- because to me that implies that any file without a copyright notice
alongside an alternative license declaration -- all your UNKNOWN lines
-- are indeed GPLv2.
I wonder about adding your modifed checklicense script into the repo,
moving COPYING to GPLv2.txt and adding a GPLv3.txt file to the repo,
and creating a new COPYING to have some explanatory text about the
licenses used in the codebase and how to use the checklicense script.
But yeah, seriously good work :-)
--
Cheers
Dave
6:44 p.m.
New subject: Next release's license?
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Dave Crossland <dave@...1555...> wrote:
Hi!
On 27 July 2012 06:37, Martin Owens <doctormo@...400...> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 21:05 +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
>>
>> Is anyone is interested in doing this?
>
> Looking at each file's headers or the commit log?
>
> Using a modified checklicense script, I've pulled the attached
> statistics.
Wow, that's AWESOME :-) Great work Martin! :-D
> Especially worrying are all the files without copyright headers at all,
> especially those in ./src (mostly headers though).
I believe the release-blocking problem is what Josh said, getting
permission to change any files which are explicitly v2 only or
otherwise not compatible with v3 into v2-or-later or otherwise v3
compatibility.
While serious, I think the lack of copyright notices isn't a release
blocker, because copyright adheres without notices, and version
control (specifically `bzr qlog` and `bzr qannotate`) will reveal who
the copyright holders are (and that may be more reliable than notices
in the text files.)
I seriously doubt they'll be all that helpful, our codebase has come
through cvs and SVN before getting to bzr, and had at least a couple
of traumatic events commit history wise that mean the history for the
files is not complete in the bzr repository.
I think its most problematic that the COPYING file is just the GPLv2
text - http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~inkscape.dev/inkscape/trunk/view/head:/COPYING
- because to me that implies that any file without a copyright notice
alongside an alternative license declaration -- all your UNKNOWN lines
-- are indeed GPLv2.
I wonder about adding your modifed checklicense script into the repo,
moving COPYING to GPLv2.txt and adding a GPLv3.txt file to the repo,
and creating a new COPYING to have some explanatory text about the
licenses used in the codebase and how to use the checklicense script.
But yeah, seriously good work :-)
--
Cheers
Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-devel mailing list
Inkscape-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-devel
1:09 a.m.
New subject: Next release's license?
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Josh Andler - scislac@...400... wrote:
I talked with Bradley from the SFC
Do you mean Bradley Kuhn of the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) <
https://www.softwarefreedom.org/ >?
1:46 a.m.
New subject: Next release's license?
On 27 July 2012 02:09,
<inkscape-devel.neophyte_rep@...2295...> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Josh Andler - scislac@...400...
wrote:
>
> I talked with Bradley from the SFC
Do you mean Bradley Kuhn of the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) <
https://www.softwarefreedom.org/ >?
Bradley was formerly at SFLC, he is now at Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC)
4152
days inactive
4155
days old
inkscape-devel@lists.inkscape.org
19 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
unknown＠example.com -
Alexandre Prokoudine -
Dave Crossland -
Guillermo Espertino (Gez) -
John Cliff -
Josh Andler -
Krzysztof Kosiński -
Martin Owens