Re: [Inkscape-devel] Tr : SVG to FXG XSL
Le Mardi 4 avril 2017 10h25, Eduard Braun <eduard.braun2@...173...> a écrit :
I'm the sole author. So I could indeed choose the license I wish. But I'm not very attached to code ownership in FLOSS project, and consider that my code is owned by the Inkscape project. In that context I need to be sure that dual-licensing it would not hurt the project (e.g. by limiting contributions). Is there any case of dual licensing in the actual code? (A quick grep returned no positive result, but maybe I didn't format it correctly.)
Le Mardi 4 avril 2017 12h36, Martin Owens <doctormo@...400...> a écrit :
Yes, but if I remember correctly we're trying to get rid of the Gimp rulers code because of its GPLv3 license. And apparently GPLv2 and Apache licenses are not compatible (according to http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/Compatible_licenses#GPLv2-compatible_lic...).
So even if it's possible, would it be acceptable for the Inkscape project to have parts of its code dual licensed with GPLv2 and Apache License v2. Regards, -- Nicolas
Am 04.04.2017 um 13:27 schrieb Nicolas Dufour:
I'm the sole author. So I could indeed choose the license I wish. But I'm not very attached to code ownership in FLOSS project, and consider that my code is owned by the Inkscape project. In that context I need to be sure that dual-licensing it would not hurt the project (e.g. by limiting contributions). Is there any case of dual licensing in the actual code? (A quick grep returned no positive result, but maybe I didn't format it correctly.)
This won't cause any issues. The licenses exist in parallel and re-users can use the license which best suits their need. (They obviously can't mix licenses, though). If the code was dual-licensed as GPLv2 and later or Apache license it can be included in Inkscape code following the terms of GPLv2 and later and Judah can use it under the terms of the Apache license.
Am 04.04.2017 um 12:36 schrieb Martin Owens:
That won't work. You can use code licensed under Apache license in GPLv3 projects, but not the other way round. Also Inkscape aims to be GPLv2+ as Nicolas mentioned. We can therefore not include GPLv3 code (as GPLv3 is more restrictive then GPLv2).
Regards, Eduard
Hi Martin,
Yeah, but why all the effort of getting approval from authors of GPL3 licensed files in Inkscape's codebase to publish them as GPLv2+ instead if we now start to include GPLv3 code again?
Also this was what you told me when I wanted to include Scour (which uses the Apache license and would actually have been allowed in a GPLv3 (not v2 though) project:
Am 27.11.2015 um 03:39 schrieb Martin Owens:
Either way: It won't help solve the initial problem (Neither GPLv2 nor GPLv3 can be included in Apache code), but I don't think there is any problem as long as Nicolas is fine with dual-licensing... As I wrote before: I doesn't have any downsides I'm aware of.
Regards Eduard
On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 15:05 +0200, Eduard Braun wrote:
I should make the distinction between policy and legality. It's current policy to make things GPLv2+, but you'll notice we still (I think) have a couple of GPLv3 bits from gimp and we're not working on resolving.
Yes, because having incompatible licenses does cause issue. Debian can choose to distribute Inkscape under GPLv3, in fact they could choose to do so without a single GPLv3 because the license allows it.
The advantage I was trying to communicate is that a GPLv2+ codebase could be moved to GPLv3 by /anyone/ not just the author, while an Apache2 licensed codebase could be encapsulated by anyone into a GPLv3 license. Thus allowing them to be combined into a single project under GPLv3 without having to ask any original authors.
Best Regards, Martin Owens
participants (3)
-
Eduard Braun
-
Martin Owens
-
Nicolas Dufour