12:52 p.m.
Hi,
I have just released a version of Hyperbole under GPLv3. Can I sync
this with the XEmacs Package Tree or need I maintain a v2 version in
parallel for now?
How will the board go about the GPLv3 issue?
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
2:15 p.m.
Mats Lidell <matsl(a)xemacs.org> writes:
I have just released a version of Hyperbole under GPLv3. Can I sync
this with the XEmacs Package Tree or need I maintain a v2 version in
parallel for now?
If Hyperbole is written all by yourself, you can release under any
number of licenses (conflicting or not) simultaneously: no need to do
anything special.
If any upstream code you use has been released as GPLv3+, you can't
release as GPLv2 without asking the upstream author.
If you don't want to stop people from synchronizing your GPLv3
released code into a GPLv2 code base without having to ask you, there
is no point to releasing under anything but GPLv2+.
As long as you yourself are the person doing the synchronization, you
can release independently as GPLv3 or GPLv3+, but put your code into
XEmacs under GPLv2+. This is sort of pointless, however, since people
can then always pull the GPLv2+ version from XEmacs. So if you feel
that GPLv3 is a better license than GPLv2, you want to use it, and you
still want to contribute to a GPLv2+ XEmacs, you should fork your
codebase, so that the XEmacs specific version licensed GPLv2+ is not
useful outside of XEmacs (basically, remove all Emacs compatibility
code).
Of course, this seems sort of brain dead. Once XEmacs considers
synchronizing to newer Emacs packages, it will have to decide whether
to go GPLv3 or stop synchronizing, anyway. So perhaps you can just
stay with GPLv2+ until that point of time and spare yourself the
hassle.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
3:46 p.m.
Mats Lidell writes:
I have just released a version of Hyperbole under GPLv3. Can I sync
this with the XEmacs Package Tree or need I maintain a v2 version in
parallel for now?
As long as all code is either "legacy" GPLv2-or-later code, or under
your authorship, you can dual-license.[1] This would be helpful to us
while we figure out what to do about GPLv3 and the main part of
XEmacs. In particular we need to make sure that there are no more Bob
Weiner surprises (GPLv2-only) waiting for us.
How will the board go about the GPLv3 issue?
Thanks to Michael Albinus, we have an opinion from the FSF Copyright
clerk. Basically, it's complex but under some circumstances we can
distribute packages under GPLv3 without relicensing either other
packages or the core XEmacs. The main consideration, I think, is
political: what Richard Stallman will think. I doubt he'll like it
very much.
I don't really think we have much choice, but we do need to check that
everything can be promoted to GPLv3, and do something about anything
that can't be promoted.
Footnotes:
[1] If you've assigned to the FSF, you may need to notify them, but
all assignments I've seen require the FSF to either license as you
request, or give you permission to "use as you see fit."
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4:35 p.m.
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
Mats Lidell writes:
> How will the board go about the GPLv3 issue?
Thanks to Michael Albinus, we have an opinion from the FSF Copyright
clerk. Basically, it's complex but under some circumstances we can
distribute packages under GPLv3 without relicensing either other
packages or the core XEmacs. The main consideration, I think, is
political: what Richard Stallman will think. I doubt he'll like it
very much.
Richard does not like the whole XEmacs project very much. So that's
not much of a point. One just wants to avoid constellations where he
feels he could or should do something about that.
I don't really think we have much choice, but we do need to
check
that everything can be promoted to GPLv3, and do something about
anything that can't be promoted.
At least it would seem from what you report from Michael that the time
frame for doing that has gotten somewhat more relaxed.
Footnotes:
[1] If you've assigned to the FSF, you may need to notify them, but
all assignments I've seen require the FSF to either license as you
request, or give you permission to "use as you see fit."
My opinion, too.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
3:43 p.m.
>>>> Stephen wrote:
Stephen> I don't really think we have much choice, but we do need to
Stephen> check that everything can be promoted to GPLv3, and do
Stephen> something about anything that can't be promoted.
So the first thing would be to identify the parts that can't be
promoted and list them in order to se how big the problem is.
I checked a few 21.5 files in the src folder and found them to be
GPLv2-or-later-at-your-option. But I fear that such a simple
identification is maybe not enough!? What else can influence if
promotion is possible?
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
5:32 p.m.
Mats Lidell writes:
I checked a few 21.5 files in the src folder and found them to be
GPLv2-or-later-at-your-option.
No, that's all that needs to be done. If we find a file that is not
v2-or-later, then we need to think about what to do.
But I fear that such a simple
identification is maybe not enough!? What else can influence if
promotion is possible?
AFAIK all licenses that can be promoted to GPLv2 can also be promoted
to GPLv3. I don't think there's anything to worry about except files
that say they are GPLv2 and not later.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
9:20 p.m.
>>>> Stephen wrote:
Stephen> AFAIK all licenses that can be promoted to GPLv2 can also be
Stephen> promoted to GPLv3. I don't think there's anything to worry
Stephen> about except files that say they are GPLv2 and not later.
OK. I hacked a script that tries to find out what license a file is
under by looking for the "GNU General Public License as published ..."
string in the top of the files.
I also assumed that files with the extension png, xbm, and xpm can't
be examined this way so they are ignored.
Now the output is rather long so I hesitate to post it to the list
today but wait for feedback. Could this kind of script be useful?
In summary the output from the script reveals that there are 599 files
left that my script does not find the GPL text. These files needs to
be analysed one way or the other.
On the other hand the script finds 932 files that does contain the
GPLv2 text.
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
10:29 p.m.
Mats Lidell <matsl(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>>>>> Stephen wrote:
Stephen> AFAIK all licenses that can be promoted to GPLv2 can also be
Stephen> promoted to GPLv3. I don't think there's anything to worry
Stephen> about except files that say they are GPLv2 and not later.
OK. I hacked a script that tries to find out what license a file is
under by looking for the "GNU General Public License as published ..."
string in the top of the files.
I also assumed that files with the extension png, xbm, and xpm can't
be examined this way so they are ignored.
Now the output is rather long so I hesitate to post it to the list
today but wait for feedback. Could this kind of script be useful?
I think so.
In summary the output from the script reveals that there are 599 files
left that my script does not find the GPL text. These files needs to
be analysed one way or the other.
Would be interesting to know what's behind these 599 files.
One or the other files from me might lack proper copyright text
(e.g. the build package).
Why don't you publish or checkin your script somewhere so others can
test it as well.
You already have
xemacs-builds/matsl
under
cvs.xemacs.org:/pack/xemacscvs
Why don't you put it there somewhere for starters?
Adrian
On the other hand the script finds 932 files that does contain the
GPLv2 text.
Yours
--
Adrian Aichner
mailto:adrianï¼ xemacs.org
http://www.xemacs.org/
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
7:51 a.m.
Adrian Aichner writes:
Would be interesting to know what's behind these 599 files.
I guess this list must be published then ;-) Remember the scripts tries
to analyse every file so I think by simply looking at what is in CVS
you'll probably stumble on them directly.
I was a bit unclear too. I have only analyzed the 21.5 sources. I guess
this would be the most important/difficult part to migrate.
Why don't you publish or checkin your script somewhere so others
can
test it as well.
I will, but it was easier to ask for feedback than to go through the
publishing process last night ;-)
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
7:54 p.m.
>>>> Adrian Aichner <adrian(a)xemacs.org> writes:
APA> Why don't you publish or checkin your script somewhere so others
APA> can test it as well.
I start with making it downloaded from my web server. There you'll
find the python script "findgplv2" and a sample output "out.txt" from
running the script on a recent checkout of xemacs 21.5.
"http://lidell.homelinux.net/~matsl/xemacs/gplv3/findgplv2"
"http://lidell.homelinux.net/~matsl/xemacs/gplv3/out.txt"
The output format is one file on each line follow either by "?" for
unknown license or GPLv2 or LGPLv2.
Feel free to modify or suggest improvements.
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
6317
days inactive
6320
days old
9 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Adrian Aichner -
David Kastrup -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
The XEmacs Package Smoketest