Re: [Denemo-devel] Re: denemo and GPLv3

[Pietro Battiston]

I'm in a hurry, but two comments:

Il giorno gio, 06/05/2010 alle 00.21 +0200, Nils Gey ha scritto:
> I'm doing investigations again.
> This is still not about the content or meaning of the gpl3 but about the 
> procedure itself:
> 
> -Very important is the string in GPL2 "any later version". 
> 
> -GPL3 and GPL2 are incompatible. If there is a gpl2-lib Denemo uses which 
> does NOT use the "any later version" clause then we can't use it if we are 
> going to use GPL3. This is the technically most critical point and needs to 
> be cleared first. I am _not_ fully against a GPL3 switch but I find it very 
> important to check if GPL3 is still compatible with our current dependencies.
> 
> -If it turns out that Denemo was indeed historically released as "GPLv2 or 
> any later version" then we don't need to ask anybody because its only a name 
> change. If "later versions" is not the case all copyright holders need to be 
> asked for permission because its a switch to an incompatible(!) license.
> 
> -A quick crawl through all Denemo files did reveal that the "COPYING" file 
> seems to be the template version. This is a bad thing because it is not clear 
> if we use "any later version" or not, because its still there in its 
> suggestion/template form: 
> "[...] (at your option) any later version.[...]"


As far as I know (only from my debian packaging habits), this is totally
normal, since that is not a "template version", it's just the license
text. I guess nobody would have or want to modify it, ever. That's why,
for instance, in Debian we don't install your "COPYING" file, but refer
to a single copy of the GPL 2 always present in the system.

And, you're right, that single file doesn't specify if denemo chose GPL
2 or 2+.

That's why, when I packaged Denemo, I "presented" it as GPL 2: simply
because I didn't have the right to interpret your "silence" as GPL 2+
(thought it was what I expected from a GNU project, this observation is
legally null).

> 
> There seem to be only four source files directly created by denemo which have 
> a license header at all, but all these four use the unaltered template 
> version, that means no one ever has made the decision to use "any later 
> version" or not.
> ./include/denemo/denemo_api.h
> ./include/denemo/denemo_types.h
> ./src/pitchrecog.c
> ./src/lyparser.h

On this point... are you sure? Still as far as I know, the unalterated
is not just a "template", it tells the recipient of the software "hey,
I'm GPL2+" (in the end, that's what GNU license experts suggest people
to adopt). For the sake of completeness, still the Debian copyright file
says:

The files
[...]
* include/denemo/denemo_types.h - general Copyright for Denemo applies
* src/pitchrecog.c - Copyright © 2003 Paul Brossier
are covered by the GPL 2 or later.

(seems like I forgot denemo_api, while lyparser is treated apart)

So from my point of view (which as far as I know is the established
interpretation) the problem is not "are those files GPL 2+?", but "does
the fact that those files are GPL 2+ allow us to infer that implicitly
the others are too?". And if the answer is "no", permission of each
copyright holder will be indeed required.

Now, what is the answer? I don't know. It is almost sure that all
contributors just didn't put a header because they implicitly accepted
Denemo license choice. On the other hand, (very) strict interpretations
of law even suggest that a file with no license header is simply "All
rights reserved" (unless a unique file for the project - in _addition_
to the bare license text - says "all the project, where not otherwise
stated, is released under license xyz"). So, on this point you may want
a really expert advice.

bye

Pietro




> 
> -If "any later version" is applied to Denemos license it means the license 
> automatically upgrades to the next available GPL once its released (at least 
> that is what the folks in #gnu said). I am very alerted by this, it means we 
> are at the mercy of the Free Software Foundation (FSF). This is not the 
> badest thing to happen, but we don't have control over our own license in 
> this case. There is no meta-license that defines what the core GPL is, so its 
> unlikely but technically possible that a gpl4 or gpl5 will be of dislike to 
> the Denemo developers but the software/license automatically upgrades.
> 
> Next steps:
> -Check if the GPL3 is worth it and rely on our own adjudgement
> -Make clear if Denemo uses the "or any later version" clause and change the 
> files according to this
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to get in the way of something but licenses are a core 
> component of free software and should no be taken lightly 
> 
> Nils
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 05 May 2010 22:50:50 +0100
> Richard Shann <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 23:19 +0200, Nils Gey wrote:
> > > I am still unsure about it.
> > > It is not clear
> > I think that must be so, othewise no significant projects could switch.
> > >  if we are allowed to change it without getting permission from the 
> > > original authors and contributers.
> > > 
> > > But more important: GPL2 still works for us.
> > It does nothing for us until someone tries to abuse Denemo in some way,
> > then we find out if it was carefully written or there were loopholes.
> > >  Why should we change a running system?
> > Because others take more interest and know more about it?
> > Richard
> > 
> > > 
> > > Nils
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 05 May 2010 14:49:36 +0100
> > > Richard Shann <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 23:30 +0000, Karl Berry wrote:
> > > > > Hi everyone -- did we discuss upgrading denemo to GPLv3-or-later?  I
> > > > > belatedly noticed the new release was still GPLv2, it seemed.  Any
> > > > > problems with switching next time?
> > > > I posted this email on to denemo-devel, but apart from some emails about
> > > > whether GPLv3 is a good thing nothing has happened. Looking around the
> > > > denemo code, it looks like what you would do is replace the file COPYING
> > > > with a new one (I expect there is a correct place to get it from...).
> > > > If that is right and no-one objects I will do that.
> > > > Richard
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Denemo-devel mailing list
> > > > address@hidden
> > > > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/denemo-devel
> > > > 
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Denemo-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/denemo-devel