[gentoo-dev] app-arch/cpio-2.9 is now GPLv3

[gentoo-dev] app-arch/cpio-2.9 is now GPLv3

[David]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 255 bytes --]

Hi,

Was suggested I make a post on the mailing list in addition to lodging
bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/184522

According to the website http://www.gnu.org/software/cpio/cpio.html CPIO
2.9 as of 2007-06-28 is now licensed under GPLv3.

-Kalidarn

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 281 bytes --]

David kirjoitti:
> Hi,
> 
> Was suggested I make a post on the mailing list in addition to lodging
> bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/184522
>

Don't know why you were suggested it but any way yes everyone should be
on the lookout for license changes.

Regards,
Petteri



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[David]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 536 bytes --]

Ah it's not the actual ebuild's fault it's the site's fault as per
according to https://bugs.gentoo.org/182943 ;) hopefully someone will
get on that.

-Kalidarn


On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 21:35 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> David kirjoitti:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Was suggested I make a post on the mailing list in addition to lodging
> > bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/184522
> >
> 
> Don't know why you were suggested it but any way yes everyone should be
> on the lookout for license changes.
> 
> Regards,
> Petteri
> 
> 

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Steve Long]

Petteri Räty wrote:
> David kirjoitti:
>> Was suggested I make a post on the mailing list in addition to lodging
>> bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/184522
>>
> Don't know why you were suggested it but any way yes everyone should be
> on the lookout for license changes.
> 
That's why ;)


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Marijn Schouten (hkBst)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

What about moving Gentoo stuff to `GPLv3 or later'?

Marijn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGkMS4p/VmCx0OL2wRAmkvAKDJCYN0B/i7Pxyg1rDPCVeaSQxZAwCfQeb0
994588RE/uxHALCw4JlcZRM=
=UEr5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Wulf C. Krueger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 527 bytes --]

On Sunday, 08. July 2007 13:04:24 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> What about moving Gentoo stuff to `GPLv3 or later'?

I'm strongly opposed to the "or later" part for the simple reason that 
this implicates we will agree with stuff we don't even know yet. 

Therefore, I'm glad our current copyright notice doesn't do this either:

"Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2"

I haven't studied GPL-3 fully yet so I haven't formed an opinion about 
moving to it alone.

Best regards, Wulf

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Seemant Kulleen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 710 bytes --]

On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 13:50 +0200, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> On Sunday, 08. July 2007 13:04:24 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> > What about moving Gentoo stuff to `GPLv3 or later'?
> 
> I'm strongly opposed to the "or later" part for the simple reason that 
> this implicates we will agree with stuff we don't even know yet. 

Hear hear.  That's why we removed the "or later" rubbish from our
licenses about 4 years ago.


> I haven't studied GPL-3 fully yet so I haven't formed an opinion about 
> moving to it alone.


I'm not certain what it buys us to move to v3, to be honest.  Unless
there are compelling reasons to do so, I don't think it's worth the
effort to change it.

Seemant


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Dominique Michel]

Le Sun, 08 Jul 2007 09:06:09 -0400,
Seemant Kulleen <seemant@gentoo.org> a écrit :

> On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 13:50 +0200, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> > On Sunday, 08. July 2007 13:04:24 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> > > What about moving Gentoo stuff to `GPLv3 or later'?
> > 
> > I'm strongly opposed to the "or later" part for the simple reason that 
> > this implicates we will agree with stuff we don't even know yet. 
> 
> Hear hear.  That's why we removed the "or later" rubbish from our
> licenses about 4 years ago.
> 
> 
> > I haven't studied GPL-3 fully yet so I haven't formed an opinion about 
> > moving to it alone.
> 
> 
> I'm not certain what it buys us to move to v3, to be honest.  Unless
> there are compelling reasons to do so, I don't think it's worth the
> effort to change it.
> 
> Seemant
> 

The problem is when you want to move. If the original statement is "GPL-2 or
later", it is just to move to whatever gpl>2 you want to move.

With the original statement "GPL-2" alone, you have to take contact and get an
authorisation to move from each single programmer that contributed code into
the project.

I personally think at gpl-3 is better as gpl-2 because GPLv3 will block
tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called “appliances”) contain
GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down if
it detects modified software. The usual motive for tivoization is that the
software has features the manufacturer thinks lots of people won't like. The
manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free
software provides, but they don't let you do likewise. see
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html

If you want to migrate to GPL-3, the most important question to solve will be:
is it possible to get an agreement to do that migration from every single
programmer involved in gentoo?

My 2 c. contrib.

Dominique

--
N.B.: Tous les emails que je reçois sont filtrés par spamassassin avant de me
parvenir.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 397 bytes --]

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:46:57 +0200
Dominique Michel <dominique.michel@citycable.ch> wrote:
> With the original statement "GPL-2" alone, you have to take contact
> and get an authorisation to move from each single programmer that
> contributed code into the project.

No, you have to get permission of the copyright holders. Which, in this
case, is the Foundation.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Seemant Kulleen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1534 bytes --]

On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 16:46 +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:

> I personally think at gpl-3 is better as gpl-2 because GPLv3 will block
> tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called “appliances”) contain
> GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down if
> it detects modified software. The usual motive for tivoization is that the
> software has features the manufacturer thinks lots of people won't like. The
> manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free
> software provides, but they don't let you do likewise. see
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html
> 
> If you want to migrate to GPL-3, the most important question to solve will be:
> is it possible to get an agreement to do that migration from every single
> programmer involved in gentoo?

Like Ciaran said, the foundation holds the copyright, so it can
re-license if it needs/wants to.  The tivoization clause is certainly
one of those subjects that can rapidly spiral downwards on this list,
because it is largely a religious issue.  In Tivo's case, they made the
software freely available, but locked down their hardware.  So, software
wise, they did not affect freedom; hardware wise, it's their design and
specs, they're under no obligations.  Either way, I'm not sure how
Gentoo is affected by the tivoization clause.  If you can really show
some way that GPL3 provides a compelling case to move to it, then we can
start talking about that.

Thanks,

Seemant


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Harald van Dijk]

On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 03:50:56PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:46:57 +0200
> Dominique Michel <dominique.michel@citycable.ch> wrote:
> > With the original statement "GPL-2" alone, you have to take contact
> > and get an authorisation to move from each single programmer that
> > contributed code into the project.
> 
> No, you have to get permission of the copyright holders. Which, in this
> case, is the Foundation.

Could you back that up, please? I was looking for something to confirm or
deny this myself, but didn't find anything.

I did, however, find
  <http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/blog/articles/20050506-foundation/>

Quoting:
  "Note that the Foundation would never change the license used for the
   code or documentation, if that could be set in stone that would be
   even better."

Is this still relevant?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Richard Freeman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2114 bytes --]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> If you can really show some way that GPL3 provides a compelling case
> to move to it, then we can start talking about that.
> 

I wasn't aware that gentoo practiced copyright assignment.  You might
want to make the disclaimers clear - if somebody submits a patch on
bugzilla and doesn't expressly assign copyright they would legally
retain it unless it were a clear condition of using the site.  Also, it
would help avoid people submitting patches that aren't
GPL-2-only-compatible from other projects.  But then again, I'm not a
lawyer...  :)

I guess one reason to move would be that it is the goal of the FSF for
this to become the "default" GPL.  So, if there was a compelling case
for adopting the GPL at all (one presumes there was since we're GPL
currently), then there is a case for migrating to GPL v3 by that virtue
alone.  Does that mean that we HAVE to?  Certainly not.

I'd ask the question why we're GPL at all?  If the reason is because we
generally agree with the principles of free software and copyleft, then
the GPL v3 is only an improvement over the GPL.  If we don't really like
copyleft as an organization then it would make more sense to just adopt
BSD, rather than stick with a copyleft license that just has a few
loopholes in it.

In terms of pros/cons with GPLv2 you'd have compatibility with GPL3 and
GPL2+ licenses, as well as the the Affero GPL.  There is of course the
closing of the tivoization loophole, and that can be considered a pro or
a con depending on your personal beliefs.  However, if you really are
pro-tivoization, then why use the GPL at all?

Oh, there exists another option - we could also relicense as GPL2 or 3 -
that gets rid of the "what if it changes to something bad" issue while
allowing others to adopt the code under either license.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGkSnKG4/rWKZmVWkRApvIAJ98Oj9+pNvRnHXYVeNAElNQ8dUeYwCfeQNN
s0QRFW/n1ZNhZm1RabgNaQk=
=w0HP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 4101 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Wulf C. Krueger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 983 bytes --]

On Sunday, 08. July 2007 20:15:31 Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > No, you have to get permission of the copyright holders. Which, in
> > this case, is the Foundation.
> Could you back that up, please? I was looking for something to confirm
> or deny this myself, but didn't find anything.

It's in the copyright notice of every single ebuild:

"# Copyright 1999-2007 Gentoo Foundation"

Thus, the copyright owner/holder is the Gentoo Foundation. The Foundation 
can therefore decide to change the licence.

>   "Note that the Foundation would never change the license used for the
>    code or documentation, if that could be set in stone that would be
>    even better."
> Is this still relevant?

Hopefully not as it is, stated as simple as that, not very wise. 

It's probably *meant* to say that the Foundation will never switch to a 
closed-source model but it shouldn't rule out switching to GPL-3 should 
that turn out to be desirable.

Best regards, Wulf

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Harald van Dijk]

On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 08:52:30PM +0200, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> On Sunday, 08. July 2007 20:15:31 Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > > No, you have to get permission of the copyright holders. Which, in
> > > this case, is the Foundation.
> > Could you back that up, please? I was looking for something to confirm
> > or deny this myself, but didn't find anything.
> 
> It's in the copyright notice of every single ebuild:
> 
> "# Copyright 1999-2007 Gentoo Foundation"
> 
> Thus, the copyright owner/holder is the Gentoo Foundation.

If I write an ebuild today, why does it not say "Copyright 2007"? It's
because the copyright notice applies to skel.ebuild and/or the tree as a
whole. Whether it also applies to the individual contributions is what
I'm curious about.

> The Foundation 
> can therefore decide to change the licence.

If the Foundation is the copyright holder, then agreed, it can.

> >   "Note that the Foundation would never change the license used for the
> >    code or documentation, if that could be set in stone that would be
> >    even better."
> > Is this still relevant?
> 
> Hopefully not as it is, stated as simple as that, not very wise. 
> 
> It's probably *meant* to say that the Foundation will never switch to a 
> closed-source model but it shouldn't rule out switching to GPL-3 should 
> that turn out to be desirable.

If you can give a clear way to separate licenses which should be
allowable, from those which should not, then please share. Would it mean
that the Foundation might change to the CDDL, for example? If not, why
not?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Wulf C. Krueger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1370 bytes --]

On Sunday, 08. July 2007 21:12:38 Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > "# Copyright 1999-2007 Gentoo Foundation"
> > Thus, the copyright owner/holder is the Gentoo Foundation.
> If I write an ebuild today, why does it not say "Copyright 2007"? 

Probably because different legal systems require different formats of the 
copyright notice. Over here, "copyright 2007" would be fully sufficient.

> It's because the copyright notice applies to skel.ebuild and/or the 
> tree as a whole. Whether it also applies to the individual 
> contributions is what I'm curious about.

TTBOMK, it applies to each and every individual ebuild. The tree itself 
doesn't seem to have a separate copyright notice and I see no need for it 
either.

As for contributions without a clear copyright notice, it would, IMHO, be 
best to make sure (e. g. by adding some legal blah to Bugzilla) they're 
original works to be licenced under (currently) the GPL-2 or derived from 
a product with a compatible licence by the contributor.

> If you can give a clear way to separate licenses which should be
> allowable, from those which should not, then please share. 

Sorry, that's both beyond my legal knowledge and my sphere of interest. :)

I think we all agree that ebuilds should be released under an open source 
licence. That's good enough for me. :-)

Best regards, Wulf

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Harald van Dijk]

On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 09:42:49PM +0200, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> On Sunday, 08. July 2007 21:12:38 Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > > "# Copyright 1999-2007 Gentoo Foundation"
> > > Thus, the copyright owner/holder is the Gentoo Foundation.
> > If I write an ebuild today, why does it not say "Copyright 2007"? 
> 
> Probably because different legal systems require different formats of the 
> copyright notice. Over here, "copyright 2007" would be fully sufficient.

If the copyright notice doesn't apply at least in part to skel.ebuild
and/or the whole tree, it's not possible for "Copyright 1999-2007" to be
required anywhere.

> > It's because the copyright notice applies to skel.ebuild and/or the 
> > tree as a whole. Whether it also applies to the individual 
> > contributions is what I'm curious about.
> 
> TTBOMK, it applies to each and every individual ebuild. The tree itself 
> doesn't seem to have a separate copyright notice and I see no need for it 
> either.

As I recall from previous discussions, the tree as a whole is
copyrighted, essentially because it is not clear whether the majority of
ebuilds are copyrightable by themselves.

> As for contributions without a clear copyright notice, it would, IMHO, be 
> best to make sure (e. g. by adding some legal blah to Bugzilla) they're 
> original works to be licenced under (currently) the GPL-2 or derived from 
> a product with a compatible licence by the contributor.

If the Foundation needs the right to relicense code, this should also be
made clear (e.g. in the "legal blah" that would be added to Bugzilla).

> > If you can give a clear way to separate licenses which should be
> > allowable, from those which should not, then please share. 
> 
> Sorry, that's both beyond my legal knowledge and my sphere of interest. :)
> 
> I think we all agree that ebuilds should be released under an open source 
> licence. That's good enough for me. :-)

I can agree with that. What I care about is the right to decide on the
license for code that is entirely written by myself. I don't really care
how the tree is licensed.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Duncan]

Richard Freeman <rich@thefreemanclan.net> posted
469129CF.9040301@thefreemanclan.net, excerpted below, on  Sun, 08 Jul 2007
14:15:43 -0400:

> Seemant Kulleen wrote:
>> If you can really show some way that GPL3 provides a compelling case to
>> move to it, then we can start talking about that.
>> 
>> 
> I wasn't aware that gentoo practiced copyright assignment.  You might
> want to make the disclaimers clear - if somebody submits a patch on
> bugzilla and doesn't expressly assign copyright they would legally
> retain it unless it were a clear condition of using the site.  Also, it
> would help avoid people submitting patches that aren't
> GPL-2-only-compatible from other projects.  But then again, I'm not a
> lawyer...  :)

Choosing here to jump in, tho this could go elsewhere in the thread.  
I've done a bit of research on this for my own (scripted) code.

Trivial isn't copyrightable.  It has to express creativity and etc.  
There's a bit of a gray line as to what's "trivial" vs what's not, but 
the position the FSF takes is that if it's just a few lines, it's 
"trivial".  I've seen numbers thrown around as low as three lines or as 
high as 20, on the "arguing on the low side" end (so some saying as low 
as 20 may consider the norm higher but admit there might be a /few/ cases 
for as low as 20 lines).

More specifically, in their licensing recommendations, the FSF suggests 
that it's /not/ appropriate to use the GPL/LGPL on works short enough 
that incorporating the whole of the license would make the license the 
bulk of the work in question.  They strongly recommend that works 
incorporate the whole license in word, not just by reference as to a URL 
or the like, since those change over time.  (This is in contrast to the 
CC licenses, which encourage incorporation by URL reference, and pledge 
to keep a more or less stable URL for each version.)  The FSF says on 
such short works, it's better to release "in the public domain" or under 
some other less restrictive license.

Thus the questions of whether many/most individual ebuilds /could/ be 
copyrighted or if so whether it's worth doing so.  Certainly, it's the 
tree that contains the license, not the individual ebuilds, etc, which 
give the copyright statement but little more.  Gentoo policy would seem 
to be, then, that it's the work of the tree as a whole that's 
copyrighted.  Individual ebuilds may or may not be, and it's /implied/ 
(which isn't necessarily legally binding) that if they are, there'd be 
little attempt at enforcement unless a significant portion of the tree 
was copied/modified.

Of course, there's also the question of whether an individual ebuild is 
all that useful in practice, without the rest of the supporting tree 
structure (not necessarily the individual applications including those 
developed by Gentoo such as portage, the tree).  Certainly without the 
eclasses, many ebuilds would be in practice almost worthless.

So the copyright is on the tree.  Note that actual Gentoo apps such as 
portage, catalyst, etc, are copyrighted individually.  The Gentoo policy 
/does/ state that apps are GPL2ed AFAIK, as is the tree.  Then there's 
documentation, which is not GPLed but generally CC-AT-SA (Attribution 
Share-alike).

> I guess one reason to move would be that it is the goal of the FSF for
> this to become the "default" GPL.  So, if there was a compelling case
> for adopting the GPL at all (one presumes there was since we're GPL
> currently), then there is a case for migrating to GPL v3 by that virtue
> alone.  Does that mean that we HAVE to?  Certainly not.
> 
> I'd ask the question why we're GPL at all?  If the reason is because we
> generally agree with the principles of free software and copyleft, then
> the GPL v3 is only an improvement over the GPL.  If we don't really like
> copyleft as an organization then it would make more sense to just adopt
> BSD, rather than stick with a copyleft license that just has a few
> loopholes in it.

That's a long and predictably controversial debate.  See all the 
electrons spilled on it debating the Linux kernel, for instance.  While I 
personally support the FSF and GPL3, there's a definitely valid position 
held by some that the code return requirements of GPL2 are sufficient, 
that Tivoization should be specifically allowed, because the code is 
returned, even if it doesn't work on their specific product without the 
signing keys and etc.

Apart from the more specifically enumerated patent protections and wider 
compatibility of GPL3, which might be worthy shooting for, I don't think 
the anti-tivoization clauses are much that Gentoo needs to worry about 
for the tree (possibly for some of the apps) anyway.  Of course, there's 
also the point that what's in the tree is scripted and therefore 
inherently in source form, and that changing it sufficiently to put it in 
compiled language form would be a rewrite and of questionable "derived" 
status.  Certainly, the work to put it in compiled form would be 
significant.  It's also not likely as the scripted form is a major part 
of the point.  If it were compiled and therefore more opaque, it'd lose 
the distinctiveness that makes it Gentoo and is coming close to being any 
other (binary) distribution.

There's also the hassle of changing.  Many contributors could argue that 
they contributed under the statement that it'd be GPL2, period.  How that 
might turn out is anyone's guess, but I just don't see that there's any 
benefit in moving the tree to GPLv3, with the possible exception of 
patent protections and I don't believe they are likely to be worth the 
switch on their own.  Thus, for the tree as a copyrightable work, I just 
don't see it being worth even attempting to change.

The case could however be made for portage, catalyst, etc, all the Gentoo 
apps.  They have a narrower contributor base so the hassle of switching 
should be less.  Their usage is such that the GPL3 may arguably be of 
benefit over the GPL2.  However, I know little of the feelings of the 
major contributors.  If they don't feel it worth switching, or are 
definitely against it, it's unlikely to happen.  If they favor switching, 
with the narrower contribution base, it might indeed be possible, and the 
benefits could indeed arguably outweigh the cost.

> In terms of pros/cons with GPLv2 you'd have compatibility with GPL3 and
> GPL2+ licenses, as well as the the Affero GPL.  There is of course the
> closing of the tivoization loophole, and that can be considered a pro or
> a con depending on your personal beliefs.  However, if you really are
> pro-tivoization, then why use the GPL at all?
> 
> Oh, there exists another option - we could also relicense as GPL2 or 3 -
> that gets rid of the "what if it changes to something bad" issue while
> allowing others to adopt the code under either license.

The 2/3 option will have lower cost than 3 only, certainly, as those who 
favor GPLv2 are less likely to be strongly opposed to the dual license 
2/3.  However, again, I don't see it being even worth serious 
consideration (beyond the current thread level) for the tree.  Possibly 
for one or more of the apps, but not the tree in general.

Again, I'm generally pro-GPLv3 switch, but an optimistic realist as 
well.  If a generally pro-GPLv3 guy doesn't see it as worth switching the 
tree, I don't believe it's going to happen, period, because there are 
certainly those that are more adamantly GPLv2 only than I am GPLv3 only, 
and they have the present situation on their side.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Steve Long]

Duncan wrote:
> Thus the questions of whether many/most individual ebuilds /could/ be
> copyrighted or if so whether it's worth doing so.  Certainly, it's the
> tree that contains the license, not the individual ebuilds, etc, which
> give the copyright statement but little more.  Gentoo policy would seem
> to be, then, that it's the work of the tree as a whole that's
> copyrighted.  Individual ebuilds may or may not be, and it's /implied/
> (which isn't necessarily legally binding) that if they are, there'd be
> little attempt at enforcement unless a significant portion of the tree
> was copied/modified.
> 
> Of course, there's also the question of whether an individual ebuild is
> all that useful in practice, without the rest of the supporting tree
> structure (not necessarily the individual applications including those
> developed by Gentoo such as portage, the tree).  Certainly without the
> eclasses, many ebuilds would be in practice almost worthless.
> 
> So the copyright is on the tree.  Note that actual Gentoo apps such as
> portage, catalyst, etc, are copyrighted individually.  The Gentoo policy
> /does/ state that apps are GPL2ed AFAIK, as is the tree.  Then there's
> documentation, which is not GPLed but generally CC-AT-SA (Attribution
> Share-alike).
> 
Hmm I agree that the ebuilds are useless without the eclasses, but imo every
ebuild is still copyrighted. (Ie `Individual ebuilds may or may not be'
seems untrue to me.) The practical consequences you outline seem accurate,
in that someone copying a single ebuild is unlikely to be sued. And OFC
this would only be an issue where the derived work is NOT released under
the GPL.

> Apart from the more specifically enumerated patent protections and wider
> compatibility of GPL3, which might be worthy shooting for, I don't think
> the anti-tivoization clauses are much that Gentoo needs to worry about
> for the tree (possibly for some of the apps) anyway.
>
Well I guess the concern would be if a Gentoo-based system were running on
such hardware. GPL3 would mean that was impractical, which aiui is the
point of the clause- to stop Free software being used in a manner that
restricts users' rights. IMO though, Gentoo is effectively already under
GPL3 in that, apart from portage and python, all the core software is GNU.
It'd be pretty difficult for instance, to run any ebuild without BASH.

> There's also the hassle of changing.  Many contributors could argue that
> they contributed under the statement that it'd be GPL2, period.  How that
> might turn out is anyone's guess, but I just don't see that there's any
> benefit in moving the tree to GPLv3, with the possible exception of
> patent protections and I don't believe they are likely to be worth the
> switch on their own.  Thus, for the tree as a copyrightable work, I just
> don't see it being worth even attempting to change.
> 
AIUI it doesn't really matter how past contributors feel (legally-speaking)
in that they explicitly gave copyright to Gentoo. It's understood when you
commit an ebuild (and indeed the notice is right in front of you.) So this
is not the same as retaining copyright and releasing under GPLv2 only,
where your consent would be required for a switch to GPLv3. Personally
speaking, anything I have contributed to Gentoo (minor stuff ofc) I did to
give something back to Gentoo. If Gentoo as a whole decides to use it in
whatever way, that's fine by me (and since I explicitly gave up copyright
to Gentoo, it couldn't matter anyhow.)

As for patent protection I see it more as projects all supporting each other
so that if you want to work with Free software you agree you're not going
to sue each other. This establishes a safe environment as opposed to the
current situation wherein a company can benefit from others' GPL2 work, and
yet still sue them under patent laws. The hassle of showing that patents
already granted are obvious or duplicating prior art, is one that Free
software cannot afford.

OFC a judge may still decide GPL3 work breaches a patent. The point is that
it's a lot harder to sue the whole community, especially as there is so
much software already written. And by using GPL3, companies actually get
*more assurance* than currently. So it's applying the core principles to
patents, that we already benefit from with copyright.

> Again, I'm generally pro-GPLv3 switch, but an optimistic realist as
> well.  If a generally pro-GPLv3 guy doesn't see it as worth switching the
> tree, I don't believe it's going to happen, period, because there are
> certainly those that are more adamantly GPLv2 only than I am GPLv3 only,
> and they have the present situation on their side.
> 
Yeah, well as i see it it's up to the Foundation, which means all the devs.
And if, as you say, many are anti-GPL3, it's just not going to happen. But
that's all that's required: imo there are no legal obstacles to switching.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Duncan]

Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> posted f6sv6g$a8$1@sea.gmane.org,
excerpted below, on  Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:23 +0100:

> Duncan wrote:
>> Thus the questions of whether many/most individual ebuilds /could/ be
>> copyrighted or if so whether it's worth doing so. []  Gentoo policy
>> would seem to be, then, that it's the work of the tree as a whole
>> that's copyrighted.  Individual ebuilds may or may not be, and it's 
>> /implied/ (which isn't necessarily legally binding) that if they are,
>> there'd be little attempt at enforcement unless a significant portion
>> of the tree was copied/modified.
>> 
>> Of course, there's also the question of whether an individual ebuild is
>> all that useful in practice, without the rest of the supporting tree
>> structure [eclasses, etc].
>> 
> Hmm I agree that the ebuilds are useless without the eclasses, but imo
> every ebuild is still copyrighted. (Ie `Individual ebuilds may or may
> not be' seems untrue to me.) The practical consequences you outline seem
> accurate, in that someone copying a single ebuild is unlikely to be
> sued. And OFC this would only be an issue where the derived work is NOT
> released under the GPL.

Some ebuilds, for example the old monolithic xfree86/xorg ebuilds, were 
certainly complicated enough to be "non-trivial".  No argument there.  
BTW, talking about eclasses, the default functions in (IIRC) ebuild.sh 
should be included as well.  The most trivial of the ebuilds are just 
that in part /because/ of those default functions, so again, we're 
looking at a complete work, altho here, it's complicated by the separate 
components, keeping in mind that there are implementations other than 
portage, which of course have to implement their own "compatible" default 
functions.

Practically speaking, however, regardless if the individual ebuilds can 
be copyrighted or not, it all comes down to where the line is drawn at 
which Gentoo (or our legal representatives) chooses to sue.  I just don't 
see it being an issue at the one or even a handful of ebuilds level, even 
if it were MS itself making use of them, except /perhaps/ as one more 
warhead in the patent MAD scenario.

>> [anti-tivoization clauses]

> Well I guess the concern would be if a Gentoo-based system were running
> on such hardware.

The likelihood of that is extremely remote.  portage and the tree's 
primary focus is on sources distributed to the end user.  For those 
focused primarily on binaries, there are better solutions, so it's not a 
practical worry at that level.  If they are simply building the system 
image using Gentoo, there's no GPL either version obligation to 
distribute the tools as long as the system can be built without them, as 
it can (untar/configure/make/make-install), any more than there's an 
obligation to distribute the CD imaging software used to create a Linux 
LiveCD, just because it has Linux on it.

> GPL3 would mean that was impractical, which aiui is
> the point of the clause- to stop Free software being used in a manner
> that restricts users' rights.

The GPL doesn't restrict use (as in end-user use, not derived use), it 
grants certain rights of distribution and modification otherwise reserved 
due to copyright, on the condition certain rules are followed regarding 
that modification and distribution.

Even under GPLv3, the TIVOs and media companies of the world are 
perfectly free to implement (say) DRM on the software.  There's just 
certain conditions placed on distribution of said product then, keys 
necessary to modify the software (as run on the distributed hardware if 
any) and therefore remove that DRM must be provided (in the consumer but 
not always the biz customer case), and in any case, GPLv3 software is 
defined as NOT an anti-circumvention device, preventing that clause of 
the DMCA and similar laws from applying.

>> There's also the hassle of changing.  Many contributors could argue
>> that they contributed under the statement that it'd be GPL2, period.
>> 
> AIUI it doesn't really matter how past contributors feel
> (legally-speaking) in that they explicitly gave copyright to Gentoo.

Copyright to Gentoo is one thing, but if it was made while there was a 
public pledge that it would be GPLv2, as someone up-thread stated has 
been the case (I tried to find the pledge on the site just now, but the 
closest I can find is the social contract, it specifies the "or later" 
clause, but also specifies at "our" discretion, with the "our" referring 
to the contributor to Gentoo), that pledge could be held to be legally 
binding.  If someone argues that they only made the assignment based on 
said pledge (which specifies that the discretion on the "or later" clause 
belongs to the committer to Gentoo), then while Gentoo holds the 
copyright, for them to change the license without the permission of the 
original contributor could be held to be fraud.  The redress for such 
fraud would likely include reversion of the copyright to the previous 
holder, since the conditions under which it was transferred were breached.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:23 +0100
Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:

> IMO though, Gentoo is effectively already under GPL3 in that, apart
> from portage and python, all the core software is GNU. It'd be pretty
> difficult for instance, to run any ebuild without BASH.

It's not a matter of opinion whether Gentoo (sys-apps/portage, the
ebuilds and so on) are GPL -2 or -3. Running your own copyrighted works
on Gentoo does not "effectively" mean that your works are suddenly
held to the same license as Gentoo. There's a complicated discussion
about derived works that I won't go into here, but Gentoo, the Linux
distribution, is distributed under many licenses, whereas Gentoo the
package management system / Portage tree is distributed under one
license -- GPL-2. Whether all the system utils or the kernel are GPL-3
is of no consequence to the package manager or the Portage tree.

Lastly, appreciating that (most) ebuilds require bash to be interpreted
does *not* make them derivative works of bash in accepted readings of
international copyright law. Therefore, the license of bash be(com)ing
GPL-3 does not preclude ebuilds being (and remaining) GPL-2.


Kind regards,
     JeR
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 679 bytes --]

Jeroen Roovers kirjoitti:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:23 +0100
> Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> IMO though, Gentoo is effectively already under GPL3 in that, apart
>> from portage and python, all the core software is GNU. It'd be pretty
>> difficult for instance, to run any ebuild without BASH.
> 
> It's not a matter of opinion whether Gentoo (sys-apps/portage, the
> ebuilds and so on) are GPL -2 or -3. 

Ebuilds heavily call into functions defined in Portage so someone could
argue that if Portage goes to GPL-3 so should the ebuilds. Of course
with EAPI things might not be this way and I am not a lawyer either.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Dominique Michel]

Le Mon, 9 Jul 2007 09:39:14 -0700,
Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> a écrit :

> On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 04:46:57PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
> > 
> > I personally think at gpl-3 is better as gpl-2 because GPLv3 will block
> > tivoization.
> 
> Only if the kernel is changed to v3, which it will not be.
> 
> So this crusade by the FSF to stop what they explicitly said was a legal
> use of v2, never succeeded, so please stop trying to worry about it.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

I don't want to force anyone to use v3, I was just saying at v3 is better as v2
from my point of vue. Maybe I am wrong, but just to say at I am wrong is not
enough.

Can you explain more. If the kernel can be tivoized by someone, who will use
this kernel? How can this affect the software xyz that have a v3 licence?

Dominique
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Dominique Michel]

> Thus the questions of whether many/most individual ebuilds /could/ be 
> copyrighted or if so whether it's worth doing so.  Certainly, it's the 
> tree that contains the license, not the individual ebuilds, etc, which 
> give the copyright statement but little more.  Gentoo policy would seem 
> to be, then, that it's the work of the tree as a whole that's 
> copyrighted.  Individual ebuilds may or may not be, and it's /implied/ 
> (which isn't necessarily legally binding) that if they are, there'd be 
> little attempt at enforcement unless a significant portion of the tree 
> was copied/modified.
> 
I think at current gentoo policy is good. I don't want to have the possibility
to have individual licence for individual ebuild because that can block a
licence change if such a change become a necessity.

> That's a long and predictably controversial debate.  See all the 
> electrons spilled on it debating the Linux kernel, for instance.  While I 
> personally support the FSF and GPL3, there's a definitely valid position 
> held by some that the code return requirements of GPL2 are sufficient, 
> that Tivoization should be specifically allowed, because the code is 
> returned, even if it doesn't work on their specific product without the 
> signing keys and etc.
> 

It doesn't matter if gentoo tree is v2 or v3 in regard of tivoization because
no one single program in portage is linked against the tree or an eclass.

I also think at the tivoization issue is not valid for the patches in the
ebuild-xyz/files folder, because they are in the tree and the tree is under gpl
v2. 

So in fact, it doesn't matter in regard of tivoization if the tre is under v2
or v3. I am not a layer, but I will be very surprised if I am wrong on that
point.

I don't know if an individual patches in some ebuild-xyz/files folder can be
under v3 or v2 and later in order to be able to legally patch a gpl-v3 xyz
software.

The situation is: the ebuild-xyz have a patch under gpl-v2 in its files folder
because it is in the tree and the whole tree is v2 only. And the software xyz
is under gpl-v3. The problem is at I think at it will not be allowed by the
software xyz because gpl-v3 is not compatible with a patch under the gpl-v2
only licence. The patch's licence must be gpl-v2 or later, gpl-v3, or gpl-v3 or
later.

Dominique
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 09:07:20PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
> Le Mon, 9 Jul 2007 09:39:14 -0700,
> Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> a ??crit :
> 
> > On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 04:46:57PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
> > > 
> > > I personally think at gpl-3 is better as gpl-2 because GPLv3 will block
> > > tivoization.
> > 
> > Only if the kernel is changed to v3, which it will not be.
> > 
> > So this crusade by the FSF to stop what they explicitly said was a legal
> > use of v2, never succeeded, so please stop trying to worry about it.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> 
> I don't want to force anyone to use v3, I was just saying at v3 is better as v2
> from my point of vue. Maybe I am wrong, but just to say at I am wrong is not
> enough.

I never stated that you are wrong about why you feel v3 is better for
you, I only stated that if you are worried about the "tivoization"
issue, then you have a long time to be worried, as it only affects the
kernel.  Also, since the Linux kernel is not going to change licenses,
this whole thing really isn't an issue at all.

> Can you explain more. If the kernel can be tivoized by someone

I'm sorry, but "tivoized" is not a verb.  Please explain what you mean
by this.

> , who will use this kernel? How can this affect the software xyz that
> have a v3 licence?

I do not understand the question, can you reprase it?

thanks,

greg k-h
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Duncan]

Dominique Michel <dominique.michel@citycable.ch> posted
20070709213752.0dfa2b72@localhost, excerpted below, on  Mon, 09 Jul 2007
21:37:52 +0200:

> So in fact, it doesn't matter in regard of tivoization if the tre is
> under v2 or v3. I am not a layer, but I will be very surprised if I am
> wrong on that point.

Agreed.  Tivoization shouldn't be an issue in this case for several 
reasons.  The Gentoo alternative just doesn't make sense for someone 
trying to tivoize, as there are better alternatives (virtually anything 
package manager designed primarily to work with binaries, as opposed to 
source).

> I don't know if an individual patches in some ebuild-xyz/files folder
> can be under v3 or v2 and later in order to be able to legally patch a
> gpl-v3 xyz software.
> 
> The situation is: the ebuild-xyz have a patch under gpl-v2 in its files
> folder because it is in the tree and the whole tree is v2 only. And the
> software xyz is under gpl-v3. The problem is at I think at it will not
> be allowed by the software xyz because gpl-v3 is not compatible with a
> patch under the gpl-v2 only licence. The patch's licence must be gpl-v2
> or later, gpl-v3, or gpl-v3 or later.

That's not an issue, because the copyright and license on the tree is on 
the collective whole, not on the components, which if copyrightable will 
have their own licenses.  That's a very common and legally well supported 
principle, that the collection gets its own copyright apart from the 
components.  Related but a slightly different angle is the "mere 
aggregation" clause of the GPLv2 (and I believe v3 as well, I don't know 
it as well yet).  That a collection of otherwise uncopyrightable 
"trivials" or information in the public domain can yet be copyrighted is 
also legally well supported.  Databases and phonebooks are precedents 
there.

Lest anyone get a very wrong idea, IANAL, tho the area is of some 
interest to me, so I follow it to some degree.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Dominique Michel]

> > Can you explain more. If the kernel can be tivoized by someone
> 
> I'm sorry, but "tivoized" is not a verb.  Please explain what you mean
> by this.

I mean if someone distribute a kernel with a licence that forbid to remove the
functions he added even if we don't want them (as example drm at the kernel
level as in Vista),

> 
> > , who will use this kernel? How can this affect the software xyz that
> > have a v3 licence?
> 
> I do not understand the question, can you reprase it?
> 

who will use this kernel when we can get a vanilla kernel and plenty of
patches and do whatever we want to do with them?

Will this affect the licencing or the distribution of the software xyz?

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

You are welcome,
Dominique
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 07:10:35PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
> 
> > > Can you explain more. If the kernel can be tivoized by someone
> > 
> > I'm sorry, but "tivoized" is not a verb.  Please explain what you mean
> > by this.
> 
> I mean if someone distribute a kernel with a licence that forbid to remove the
> functions he added even if we don't want them (as example drm at the kernel
> level as in Vista),

But that's impossible with the current Linux kernel license, so how
could that ever happen?  Why even try to discuss an impossiblity?

> > > , who will use this kernel? How can this affect the software xyz that
> > > have a v3 licence?
> > 
> > I do not understand the question, can you reprase it?
> > 
> 
> who will use this kernel when we can get a vanilla kernel and plenty of
> patches and do whatever we want to do with them?

As creating such a kernel is not possible with the current Linux kernel,
again, I don't see how anyone could even use it.

> Will this affect the licencing or the distribution of the software xyz?

The license of the Linux kernel has no affect on the license or
distribution of any sofware that runs on top of it, so I do not see how
it would matter.

thanks,

greg k-h
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Kevin Lacquement]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 886 bytes --]

Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 07:10:35PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
>>>> Can you explain more. If the kernel can be tivoized by someone
>>> I'm sorry, but "tivoized" is not a verb.  Please explain what you mean
>>> by this.
>> I mean if someone distribute a kernel with a licence that forbid to remove the
>> functions he added even if we don't want them (as example drm at the kernel
>> level as in Vista),
> 
> But that's impossible with the current Linux kernel license, so how
> could that ever happen?  Why even try to discuss an impossiblity?
> 

I understood it to mean that you're allowed to change the source, but
the hardware has locks on it to prevent you from using the changed
source.  So yes, you're allowed to modify the code and pass it on (as
permitted by the GPL), but you can't actually run it (eg due to code
signing requirements)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 05:37:46PM -0300, Kevin Lacquement wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 07:10:35PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
> >>>> Can you explain more. If the kernel can be tivoized by someone
> >>> I'm sorry, but "tivoized" is not a verb.  Please explain what you mean
> >>> by this.
> >> I mean if someone distribute a kernel with a licence that forbid to remove the
> >> functions he added even if we don't want them (as example drm at the kernel
> >> level as in Vista),
> > 
> > But that's impossible with the current Linux kernel license, so how
> > could that ever happen?  Why even try to discuss an impossiblity?
> > 
> 
> I understood it to mean that you're allowed to change the source, but
> the hardware has locks on it to prevent you from using the changed
> source.  So yes, you're allowed to modify the code and pass it on (as
> permitted by the GPL), but you can't actually run it (eg due to code
> signing requirements)

The GPLv2 is all about distribution, not use cases, so yes, this is the
case and is perfictly legal with GPLv2 (even the FSF explicitly told
Tivo that what they were doing was legal and acceptable.)

So, what is the problem here?  The kernel is not going to change
licenses any time soon, so I don't understand your objections.

thanks,

greg k-h
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Steve Long]

Greg KH wrote:
> The GPLv2 is all about distribution, not use cases, so yes, this is the
> case and is perfictly legal with GPLv2 (even the FSF explicitly told
> Tivo that what they were doing was legal and acceptable.)
>
Well legal, maybe, ie acceptable under the terms.

> So, what is the problem here?  The kernel is not going to change
> licenses any time soon, so I don't understand your objections.
> 
I think the point is that people who oppose this kind of thing (yes,
including me) would rather _our_ contributions were under GPLv3. Yet at the
moment, we effectively have no choice.

Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I wrote from
scratch?

(NB this is the ebuild, not the software packaged.)


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 672 bytes --]

On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I wrote from
> scratch?

The point is that we don't feel that you *can* write an ebuild "from
scratch" since it will require certain components, which we feel require
you to base your ebuild on skel.ebuild instead.  Basically, if it's an
ebuild and not something else (spec/pkginfo/control) then it is based
off the one skeleton ebuild which is father to them all, skel.ebuild...

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 557 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:24:25 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> > Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I
> > wrote from scratch?
> 
> The point is that we don't feel that you *can* write an ebuild "from
> scratch" since it will require certain components, which we feel
> require you to base your ebuild on skel.ebuild instead.

Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
familiarity with ebuilds.


-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:18:13AM +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > The GPLv2 is all about distribution, not use cases, so yes, this is the
> > case and is perfictly legal with GPLv2 (even the FSF explicitly told
> > Tivo that what they were doing was legal and acceptable.)
> >
> Well legal, maybe, ie acceptable under the terms.
> 
> > So, what is the problem here?  The kernel is not going to change
> > licenses any time soon, so I don't understand your objections.
> > 
> I think the point is that people who oppose this kind of thing (yes,
> including me) would rather _our_ contributions were under GPLv3. Yet at the
> moment, we effectively have no choice.

That is _totally_ different than the case which was specifically brought
up about the whole "tivo" issue and the Linux kernel.

Ebuilds are different, I have no opinion on that (but I do know that the
DRM issues mean nothing for them, that only pertains to the kernel).

thanks,

greg k-h
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 910 bytes --]

On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> > > Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I
> > > wrote from scratch?
> >
> > The point is that we don't feel that you *can* write an ebuild "from
> > scratch" since it will require certain components, which we feel
> > require you to base your ebuild on skel.ebuild instead.
>
> Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
> familiarity with ebuilds.

perhaps, but in the larger scheme of things, irrelevant

either Gentoo goes GPL-3 or not at all ... having ebuilds with mixed licenses 
is doomed to failure

unless there is a pressing need for Gentoo to go GPL-3 (and i dont think 
anyone has stated any where it'd matter to Gentoo), there isnt much point 
right now i dont think
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 570 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:00:14 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
> > familiarity with ebuilds.
> 
> perhaps, but in the larger scheme of things, irrelevant

Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
from-scratch ebuilds... In which case, afaics there's nothing to stop
*them* from going GPL-3 if they think there's a reason to do so. Unless
the Foundation somehow claims that all ebuilds, even those
from-scratch, are derived works?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Seemant Kulleen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1026 bytes --]

On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:07 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
> from-scratch ebuilds... In which case, afaics there's nothing to stop
> *them* from going GPL-3 if they think there's a reason to do so. Unless
> the Foundation somehow claims that all ebuilds, even those
> from-scratch, are derived works?

What's the case here?  Third-party ebuilds being contributed into the
tree via bugzilla and other means?  Or third-party ebuilds from joe
shmoe off www.joeshmoesebuilds.com?

The second case is meaningless to Gentoo.   The first case needs to be
considered.  The question there, I suppose, is: do we *require*
contributors to license ebuilds as GPL-2?  And if that is the case,
that's what stops them.

It would be an interesting question, though, to prove that someone wrote
a from-scratch ebuild via looking only at the documentation, and without
basing any parts off of already existing ebuilds in the tree, no?


Thanks,

Seemant


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1343 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:14:38 -0400
Seemant Kulleen <seemant@gentoo.org> wrote:
> What's the case here?  Third-party ebuilds being contributed into the
> tree via bugzilla and other means?  Or third-party ebuilds from joe
> shmoe off www.joeshmoesebuilds.com?
> 
> The second case is meaningless to Gentoo.   The first case needs to be
> considered.  The question there, I suppose, is: do we *require*
> contributors to license ebuilds as GPL-2?  And if that is the case,
> that's what stops them.

Right. The second case is already covered by Gentoo policy.

> It would be an interesting question, though, to prove that someone
> wrote a from-scratch ebuild via looking only at the documentation,
> and without basing any parts off of already existing ebuilds in the
> tree, no?

It'd be interesting to try to prove that they *did* copy it too... For
a sufficiently trivial ebuild, it's entirely possible for a third party
to come up with something that's very close to the in-tree ebuild, even
if they did write it from scratch...

Didn't someone (Seemant? I forget) have to 'provably' rewrite a few
ebuilds that were in the tree a while ago? Wasn't there some issue with
the copyright on ebuilds written by a former developer being something
like "Copyright blah Gentoo and dude's_nick"?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Wulf C. Krueger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 657 bytes --]

On Thursday, 12. July 2007 21:14:38 Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> It would be an interesting question, though, to prove that someone
> wrote a from-scratch ebuild via looking only at the documentation, and
> without basing any parts off of already existing ebuilds in the tree,
> no?

How many angels can dance on the head of a needle? [1]

Seriously, guys... 

*Did* some Gentoo dev commit an ebuild licenced under GPL-3?
*Did* some user attach an ebuild licenced under GPL-3 to a bug?

Best regards, Wulf

[1] The definitive answer, btw, was found by Professor Raoul Mortley: "The 
answer is of course well known; fewer if fat, more if thin".

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2215 bytes --]

On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 15:14 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 20:07 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 
> > Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
> > from-scratch ebuilds... In which case, afaics there's nothing to stop
> > *them* from going GPL-3 if they think there's a reason to do so. Unless
> > the Foundation somehow claims that all ebuilds, even those
> > from-scratch, are derived works?
> 
> What's the case here?  Third-party ebuilds being contributed into the
> tree via bugzilla and other means?  Or third-party ebuilds from joe
> shmoe off www.joeshmoesebuilds.com?
> 
> The second case is meaningless to Gentoo.   The first case needs to be
> considered.  The question there, I suppose, is: do we *require*
> contributors to license ebuilds as GPL-2?  And if that is the case,
> that's what stops them.
> 
> It would be an interesting question, though, to prove that someone wrote
> a from-scratch ebuild via looking only at the documentation, and without
> basing any parts off of already existing ebuilds in the tree, no?

How likely is this?

Let me put it another way.  I write ebuilds all the time.  I don't need
to look at the documentation or any other ebuilds to write a new one.
However, any ebuild I write is a derived work of previous ebuilds.  Why?
Because I used skel.ebuild and other ebuilds already in the tree as the
basis for the ebuilds I originally wrote.  Because I no longer need to
actually *look* at other ebuilds doesn't change that my entire knowledge
base for ebuild writing is derived from other ebuilds, which were based
on other ebuilds before them.  Also, I would find it very difficult, if
not impossible, to write an ebuild that is even slightly complex without
using the eclasses, at all.  Sure, it is *possible* that someone is
capable of writing an ebuild entirely from scratch, but the likelihood
is pretty much nonexistent.

We could just end this really quickly and require all ebuilds submitted
be done under GPLv2.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 534 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:48:05 +0200
"Wulf C. Krueger" <philantrop@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Seriously, guys... 
> 
> *Did* some Gentoo dev commit an ebuild licenced under GPL-3?
> *Did* some user attach an ebuild licenced under GPL-3 to a bug?

There are third party repositories out there with from-scratch ebuilds
that, at the very least, don't use Gentoo copyright. So if the
Foundation is claiming that all ebuilds are derived from skel.ebuild as
wolf31o2 implies, this is most definitely an issue.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 482 bytes --]

On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
> > > familiarity with ebuilds.
> >
> > perhaps, but in the larger scheme of things, irrelevant
>
> Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
> from-scratch ebuilds...

why would Gentoo care two licks about ebuilds in third party repositories ... 
this is just pointless pondering
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2518 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:58:49 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > It would be an interesting question, though, to prove that someone
> > wrote a from-scratch ebuild via looking only at the documentation,
> > and without basing any parts off of already existing ebuilds in the
> > tree, no?
> 
> How likely is this?

I know for a fact that people have already done it and are
redistributing works created that way without a Foundation copyright or
any "Based upon blah, which is copyright Gentoo blah" notice. I'm not
aware of any non-GPL-2 ebuilds being distributed, but if it is claimed
that all ebuilds are derived works of skel.ebuild then there's still a
copyright issue here.

> Let me put it another way.  I write ebuilds all the time.  I don't
> need to look at the documentation or any other ebuilds to write a new
> one. However, any ebuild I write is a derived work of previous
> ebuilds.  Why? Because I used skel.ebuild and other ebuilds already
> in the tree as the basis for the ebuilds I originally wrote.  Because
> I no longer need to actually *look* at other ebuilds doesn't change
> that my entire knowledge base for ebuild writing is derived from
> other ebuilds, which were based on other ebuilds before them. 

Getting an idea or knowledge from somewhere doesn't subject something
to copyright or licence requirements. There may be patent and
non-disclosure issues, but neither are applicable here.

> Also, I would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to write an
> ebuild that is even slightly complex without using the eclasses, at
> all. Sure, it is *possible* that someone is capable of writing an
> ebuild entirely from scratch, but the likelihood is pretty much
> nonexistent.

As I understand it, merely using an eclass doesn't force GPL-2 on an
ebuild because there's no linkage involved.

> We could just end this really quickly and require all ebuilds
> submitted be done under GPLv2.

Sure, but what about third party ebuilds? Claiming that all ebuilds are
derived work of a Gentoo-copyrighted ebuild effectively requires all
ebuilds that don't have Gentoo copyright to include a statement like:

# Based upon skel.ebuild, which is Copyright 1999-2007 Gentoo Foundation

There are quite a few things out there that do not currently comply with
this requirement. If the Foundation truly believes that all ebuilds are
derived works, they should issue some kind of statement saying so.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 912 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:10:48 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
> > > > familiarity with ebuilds.
> > >
> > > perhaps, but in the larger scheme of things, irrelevant
> >
> > Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
> > from-scratch ebuilds...
> 
> why would Gentoo care two licks about ebuilds in third party
> repositories ... this is just pointless pondering

Because if they're derived works from skel.ebuild as wolf31o2 is
claiming, then there are both copyright and licence requirements imposed
upon them. If this is the case, there are people out there in
violation, some of whom would likely take extremely strong issue with
the "derived works" argument...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 351 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> 
> As I understand it, merely using an eclass doesn't force GPL-2 on an
> ebuild because there's no linkage involved.
> 

This argument would make it possible to write apps using GPL-2 python
libraries in !GPL-2 licenses so I don't think it goes that way but I am
no lawyer as said before.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Harald van Dijk]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:16:46PM +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:
> > 
> > As I understand it, merely using an eclass doesn't force GPL-2 on an
> > ebuild because there's no linkage involved.
> > 
> 
> This argument would make it possible to write apps using GPL-2 python
> libraries in !GPL-2 licenses

Correct, it does, just like it permits C applications with
GPL-incompatible licenses to link with GPL libraries, so long as this
linking is done by the end user and the application is not distributed
in its linked form. See for example the NVidia kernel module, or for a
somewhat different but similar example, cdrtools.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1166 bytes --]

On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:10:48 -0400
>
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > > Which feelings are clearly wrong, for anyone with any degree of
> > > > > familiarity with ebuilds.
> > > >
> > > > perhaps, but in the larger scheme of things, irrelevant
> > >
> > > Unless there are third party repositories shipping their own
> > > from-scratch ebuilds...
> >
> > why would Gentoo care two licks about ebuilds in third party
> > repositories ... this is just pointless pondering
>
> Because if they're derived works from skel.ebuild as wolf31o2 is
> claiming, then there are both copyright and licence requirements imposed
> upon them. If this is the case, there are people out there in
> violation, some of whom would likely take extremely strong issue with
> the "derived works" argument...

blah blah blah it's a stupid argument

third parties are free to license however they like.  anything in the Gentoo 
portage tree has to have a header the same as skel.ebuild.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 315 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:06:05 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> third parties are free to license however they like.

Could the Foundation make a formal statement to that effect, and could
wolf31o2 retract his claim that all ebuilds are derived works of
skel.ebuild?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 382 bytes --]

On Thursday 12 July 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > third parties are free to license however they like.
>
> Could the Foundation make a formal statement to that effect, and could
> wolf31o2 retract his claim that all ebuilds are derived works of
> skel.ebuild?

why dont you go make a query where it belongs: on the trustees list
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Steve Long]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:

> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
>> Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I wrote from
>> scratch?
> 
> The point is that we don't feel that you *can* write an ebuild "from
> scratch" since it will require certain components, which we feel require
> you to base your ebuild on skel.ebuild instead.  Basically, if it's an
> ebuild and not something else (spec/pkginfo/control) then it is based
> off the one skeleton ebuild which is father to them all, skel.ebuild...
> 
I understand what you're getting at but when I first wanted to write an
ebuild so my kid could use synfig[1], I hadn't even looked at skel.ebuild
(lame, I know. I'd heard of it but wanted to do my own thing- I'm funny
like that.) I just based it all on the devmanual functions (since that was
linked from the forums) and to me that is akin to reading eg
http://wooledge.org/mywiki/BashGuide and then writing a script (although a
lot simpler.) I certainly wouldn't accept that it was based in any way on
skel.ebuild.

I have only just opened skel.ebuild for the first time while copying all the
portage/skel.* files to make an ebuild (thought I'd try it) for medit which
can be used by pida (altho it needs a new plugin for the new version.)
First time I've ever seen the comments from drobbins in the changelog as
well. TBH I got tired of all the comments in skel.ebuild since I am up to
speed with bash, and was just going to delete it all and start from
scratch. I thought I should post since my instinct is to put GPL3 on
anything I send out, that isn't work-related.

OFC you require all Gentoo ebuilds to be assigned to Gentoo-- that's fair
enough, I accept and support that. It just seems odd that we can't
contribute under GPL3 if we so choose. But yeah, all stuff in Gentoo is (C)
by the Foundation, and it's all available under GPL2 only. The Foundation
can aiui change that to any license it chooses, in the same way as the FSF
has changed the license for its copyrighted works to GPL3.

I agree with Mr McCreesh however, that it is perfectly possible to write an
ebuild without looking at skel.ebuild, as I have done it. The devmanual
gives enough information to do so. 

Please note, this is not some paranoia thing about assignment, nor is it a
crusade for GPL3. I am happy that I can use Gentoo, period.

BTW _Congratulations_ on the excellent write-up in linuxformat! They gave
the new release 9 out of 10. They seemed impressed both by the new
installer and the networkless install.
_ _
[1] These are the bugs for synfig: you'll see from ETL-20060929 that my
first ebuild really was simple :-) None of the ones I put in was based on
skel.ebuild.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111277 -- ETL
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111278 -- synfig
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111279 -- synfig-studio

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1 is
great as well, but I only found that link relatively recently (3 or 4
months ago in #-dev-help)

[sorry for length]


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Steve Long]

Greg KH wrote:
>> > So, what is the problem here?  The kernel is not going to change
>> > licenses any time soon, so I don't understand your objections.
>> > 
>> I think the point is that people who oppose this kind of thing (yes,
>> including me) would rather _our_ contributions were under GPLv3. Yet at
>> the moment, we effectively have no choice.
> 
> That is _totally_ different than the case which was specifically brought
> up about the whole "tivo" issue and the Linux kernel.
> 
> Ebuilds are different, I have no opinion on that (but I do know that the
> DRM issues mean nothing for them, that only pertains to the kernel).
> 
OK, but what about a corporation selling Gentoo-based tivo boxes? Updates
are carried out as, say, binary images, and they continue to use all the
flexibility of Gentoo (built by its users, and devs who are also users)
while curtailing Gentoo users' rights.

I understand the argument that eg GCC is a paintbox, and the FSF don't want
copyright over your paintings, but do want improvements to the toolset to
be shared by all. I /had/ thought "3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From
Anti-Circumvention Law" meant that GCC could not be used to build such a
system:
"No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure
under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the
WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws"
Hmm got that wrong I guess, my bad. (I guess you can tell I ain't a
lawyer ;-))

I still don't like it :-) I also wonder how the above applies to BASH, which
is usually such a critical element of a GNU/Linux system.. I guess that's
what other shells, under less protective licenses, will be used for tho.

(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html for users who don't have the url.)


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:56:24PM +0100, Steve Long wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >> > So, what is the problem here?  The kernel is not going to change
> >> > licenses any time soon, so I don't understand your objections.
> >> > 
> >> I think the point is that people who oppose this kind of thing (yes,
> >> including me) would rather _our_ contributions were under GPLv3. Yet at
> >> the moment, we effectively have no choice.
> > 
> > That is _totally_ different than the case which was specifically brought
> > up about the whole "tivo" issue and the Linux kernel.
> > 
> > Ebuilds are different, I have no opinion on that (but I do know that the
> > DRM issues mean nothing for them, that only pertains to the kernel).
> > 
> OK, but what about a corporation selling Gentoo-based tivo boxes? Updates
> are carried out as, say, binary images, and they continue to use all the
> flexibility of Gentoo (built by its users, and devs who are also users)
> while curtailing Gentoo users' rights.

As you have control over the kernel, just replace it with something you
can use to circumvent the drm issue.  Quite simple to do, no GPLv3
issues involved at all :)

Remember, if you can replace the kernel, you 0wn the whole box full
stop.  That is why the v3 DRM issues really only affect the kernel, and
we (the linux kernel developers) were explicitly told this by the FSF to
our faces.

thanks,

greg k-h
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:11:36 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@ciaranm.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:06:05 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > third parties are free to license however they like.
> 
> Could the Foundation make a formal statement to that effect, and could
> wolf31o2 retract his claim that all ebuilds are derived works of
> skel.ebuild?

Chris doesn't need to retract his claim, because his claim is very
likely false or at best immaterial. Finding out whether one work is a
derivative of another is much too expensive. It's easier to state a
copyright claim, in effect surrendering the copyright to the Gentoo
Foundation, and be done with it, and then let the Gentoo Foundation set
the license, in this case GPL-2. This happens to be exactly what the
<header.txt> file[0] in gentoo-x86 is for, but sadly there is no
documentation that explains this policy at all, it seems.

To be exact, by submitting an ebuild, you actively surrender the
copyright to the ebuild to the Gentoo Foundation, formerly Gentoo
Technologies, Inc. [1], the original commit of skel.build (later
skel.ebuild) already made this very clear:

# Copyright 1999-2000 Gentoo Technologies, Inc.
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, v2 or
later
# Author Your Name <your email>
# $Header$

I remember seeing a less subtle statement to this effect (that the
copyright to anything you submit to Gentoo's CVS is passed on to
the Gentoo Project) a long time ago, probably in the devrel/recruiters
documentation during my own recruitment. Right now I can only find
this:

  "===Headers===

When you submit your ebuilds, the header should be exactly the same as
the one in /usr/portage/header.txt. Most importantly, do not modify it
in anyway and make sure that the $Header: $ line is intact."[2]

Sadly, currently no document on www.gentoo.org explains the judicial
better than [3], which has this:

"The bureaucracy we mention includes:

[...]

-     juridical protection: backing up the licenses Gentoo uses,
      maintaining the copyrights on Gentoo's software, documentation and
      other assets and protecting Gentoo's intellectual property"

and also:

"In other words, the Gentoo Foundation will:

[...]

-     protect the developed code, documentation, artwork and other
      material through copyright and licenses"

I think this lack of clarity calls for some changes to at least the
policy documents. Ebuilds can probably not be considered proper
derivatives of skel.[e]build, but IANAL, I can only say that having a
court find this would be very expensive, whatever the outcome.


Therefore, the copyright to an ebuild is or should be actively and
simply turned over to the Gentoo Foundation by the developer, and this
should be made policy and should be explained properly in a few places
in our documentation.

Should I file a documentation bug about this?


Kind regards,
     JeR

[0] http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/header.txt
[1] http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/skel.ebuild
[2]
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 15:14:38 -0400
Seemant Kulleen <seemant@gentoo.org> wrote:

> The question there, I suppose, is: do we *require* contributors to
> license ebuilds as GPL-2?

The Gentoo Project requires contributors to surrender the copyright to
the Gentoo Foundation. The Foundation sets the license (to GPL-2). I
(hopefully :) explained this in another reply to this thread.


Kind regards,
     JeR
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 227 bytes --]

On Thursday 12 July 2007, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> <snip>

before people start responding with their opinions, take this to the trustees 
list.  that list is for all Gentoo licensing/copyright/blah-blah-boring-crap.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Marius Mauch]

Add usual IANAL disclaimer here. All of what I say below is just a
recall of what I remember from discussions that happened a few years
ago.

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 04:53:10 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:

> To be exact, by submitting an ebuild, you actively surrender the
> copyright to the ebuild to the Gentoo Foundation, formerly Gentoo
> Technologies, Inc. [1], the original commit of skel.build (later
> skel.ebuild) already made this very clear:

Only if the ebuild actually includes our copyright header, and even then
is probably questionable in legal terms.

> I remember seeing a less subtle statement to this effect (that the
> copyright to anything you submit to Gentoo's CVS is passed on to
> the Gentoo Project) a long time ago, probably in the devrel/recruiters
> documentation during my own recruitment.

I think you're talking about the copyright assignment doc, which new
devs were required to sign for some time (back when drobbins was still
in charge) and send back to drobbins, but which was pulled because of
serious flaws. Ever since the copyright assignment issue has been
something the foundation/board of trustees should have take care of
(one of the reasons we needed the lawyers), with no result so far.

> Sadly, currently no document on www.gentoo.org explains the judicial
> better than [3], which has this:
> 
> "The bureaucracy we mention includes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> -     juridical protection: backing up the licenses Gentoo uses,
>       maintaining the copyrights on Gentoo's software, documentation
> and other assets and protecting Gentoo's intellectual property"
> 
> and also:
> 
> "In other words, the Gentoo Foundation will:
> 
> [...]
> 
> -     protect the developed code, documentation, artwork and other
>       material through copyright and licenses"

Which isn't really related, as we can only protect what we own.

> Therefore, the copyright to an ebuild is or should be actively and
> simply turned over to the Gentoo Foundation by the developer, and this
> should be made policy and should be explained properly in a few places
> in our documentation.
> 
> Should I file a documentation bug about this?

Well, documention won't help to resolve the legal questions about this
(what exactly is necessary to assign copyright from a person to the
foundation), and that's the main problem IMO.

Marius

-- 
Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org>
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:55:26 +0200
Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Well, documention won't help to resolve the legal questions about this
> (what exactly is necessary to assign copyright from a person to the
> foundation), and that's the main problem IMO.

I never realised this was controversial. In that case, Mr. Frysinger is
correct in stating this thread should probably be moved to this
exciting "trustees list"  he keeps mentioning. :)


Kind regards,
     JeR
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 519 bytes --]

On Friday 13 July 2007, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Well, documention won't help to resolve the legal questions about this
> > (what exactly is necessary to assign copyright from a person to the
> > foundation), and that's the main problem IMO.
>
> I never realised this was controversial. In that case, Mr. Frysinger is
> correct in stating this thread should probably be moved to this
> exciting "trustees list"  he keeps mentioning. :)

Mr. Frysinger is my dad, stoopid
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3.

[Steve Long]

Marius Mauch wrote:
> Well, documention won't help to resolve the legal questions about this
> (what exactly is necessary to assign copyright from a person to the
> foundation), and that's the main problem IMO.
> 
Yeah, but most of us are pretty well aware that we're submitting an ebuild
with Gentoo copyright on it. I think the vast majority are perfectly happy
for it to help Gentoo under whatever license you guys think is appropriate.

It's not like we don't see the copyright notice, and are unaware of it. The
only question is why can't that be GPL3? It's not exactly stopping Gentoo
from using the ebuild.

But it does imply that the ebuild cannot be used for Tivo-ised systems,
which I for one, would much prefer for anything I contribute to.

Like I say tho, whatever is best for Gentoo as a whole.



-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list