Re: [phpGroupWare-developers] Coordination Team

[Dave Hall]

On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 23:01 +0100, Sigurd Nes wrote:
> Dave Hall wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Let me start this by saying IANAL, but ... :)
> > 
> > On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 18:36 +0100, Sigurd Nes wrote:
> >> Benoit Hamet wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> Sorry to jump into this, but :
> >>>
> >>> Sigurd Nes a écrit :
> >>>>> From: Dave Hall address@hidden
> >>>>> Sent: 2008-03-04 15:02:00 CET
> >>>>> To: address@hidden
> >>>>> Subject: Re: SV: [phpGroupWare-developers] Coordination Team
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 14:30 +0100, Sigurd Nes wrote:
> >>>>>>> From: Dave Hall address@hidden
> >>>>>>> Sent: 2008-03-04 13:39:41 CET
> >>>>>>> To: address@hidden
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [phpGroupWare-developers] Coordination Team
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 2008-02-23 at 10:56 +0100, Sigurd Nes wrote:
> >>>>>>>> I'm happy with the team - it's just that sometimes I could wish I had
> >>>>>>>> a vote in decision processes rather than being told afterwards that
> >>>>>>>> some policy
> >>>>>>>> has changed.
> >>>>>>> I am not sure which policies you are referring to.  The policies of 
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> project and release goals for 0.9.18 haven't really changed for a long
> >>>>>>> time.  
> >>>>>> Well - how about licensing GPLv2 vs. GPLv3. (or what about AGPL?)
> >>>>> GPLv3 is a requirement of being a GNU package and was discussed here
> >>>>> back in July last year.  The AGPL is a great license for something like
> >>>>> phpgw, but without rewriting large chunks of code we can't use it.
> >>>> Could we have things like that in the Developers Guide ?
> >>> I'm not sure to understand what you mean here ... "things like that" is
> >>> for the fact that being a GNU package has some well known constraints
> >>> (and lot's advantages IMHO), or that if you want to put some pieces of
> >>> code under another Licence than the official one it should be GPLv3
> >>> Compliant ? Or another thing ?
> >>>  
> >> I'm thinking on rules for how to play in general.
> >>
> >> For the xGPL - as I understand it  - the <quote>either version 2 of the 
> >> License,
> >> or (at your option) any later version</quote> is GPLv3 compliant.
> > 
> > No, that allows someone to relicense GPLv2 code as GPLv3, but doesn't
> > make that code automatically GPLv3 licensed.  Also the GPLv2 and v3 are
> > not compatiable.  We can not distribute code which is a mix of L/GPLv2
> > and L/GPLv3.  As agreed here and with the FSF we will be moving to
> > L/GPLv3 for the 0.9.18 release.  All new checkins should contain proper
> > phpdoc headers with L/GPLv3 licensing
> > 
> > 
> >> -Also (still my perception): The rationale behind LGPL, is that where 
> >> there are
> >>  alternative libraries available for the proprietary software - it is 
> >> desirable
> >> that it is the GNU version that is preferred, and LGPL will allow the
> >> proprietary software to link to it.
> >> However, when a library provides a significant unique capability, 
> >> releasing it
> >> under the GPL and limiting its use to free programs is preferred to 
> >> promote the
> >> GNU variant.
> >>
> >> As I understand it - one can use all variants of the xGPL - not having to 
> >> choose
> >> only one.
> > 
> > You can combine all 3 licenses in 1 piece of work, but it is best to
> > have clear delineation between which license applies to which parts of
> > code.  If you wish to relicense a module AGPL, the following process
> > will apply:
> > 
> > * Conduct a code audit to ensure that _all_ code to be relicensed is
> > covered by a FSF copyright assignment
> > 
> > * Email here with the code audit info, listing who wrote each file - no
> > matter how small.  We need this to ensure that the code can be
> > relicensed.
> > 
> > * As the GNU package maintainer I will contact the FSF and discuss a
> > relicensing, this must be done as the FSF holds the copyright over the
> > code.
> > 
> > I don't think that having some modules GPL and some AGPL adds much to
> > the project, and probably adds to confusion and administrative overhead.
> > 
> > I don't support a wholesale relicensing of phpgw as AGPL, as it would
> > create too much work in terms of code audits and rewriting code, and
> > provide very little benefit.
> > 
> >> My personal opinion is that the GPL could be replaced with AGPL wherever 
> >> it is
> >> used - while LGPL has to stay as is (if appropriate for linking with other 
> >> parties).
> > 
> > The linking is an interesting issue, but I think these days we could use
> > GPL for the API too, but I am not going to push for that.  We already
> > have some GPL code in the API.
> > 
> > I think that licensing discussions can get bogged down very quickly
> > provide little benefit.  I think we should be focused on a L/GPLv3
> > 0.9.18 release.
> > 
> 
> By all means - I'm not pursuing this - the point was to show that the 
> Developers
> Guide could be more informative - and could/should be updated when 
> long-standing
> policies are settled.

It would require us having a developer guide :)

Cheers

Dave