From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1I7gmr-0005NS-G5 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:07:34 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with SMTP id l6906ZfN007739; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:06:35 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l6904ZC9005425 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:04:36 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57EC56546F for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:04:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.004 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.004 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.595, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WeFw4BZYhejX for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:04:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6A0C65451 for ; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:04:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I7gjo-0002bG-6R for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2007 02:04:24 +0200 Received: from ip68-231-14-118.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.14.118]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 09 Jul 2007 02:04:24 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-14-118.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 09 Jul 2007 02:04:24 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Watch out for license changes to GPL-3. Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:04:09 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1183832495.20203.11.camel@SOLACE> <468FDCFE.1060404@gentoo.org> <4690C4B8.4000407@gentoo.org> <200707081350.27220.philantrop@gentoo.org> <1183899969.6634.1.camel@localhost> <20070708164657.4edd8378@localhost> <1183916932.6634.6.camel@localhost> <469129CF.9040301@thefreemanclan.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-14-118.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.131 (Ghosts: First Variation) Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: ed6ddeb6-3c31-4bf1-bcdf-546a5a65d93a X-Archives-Hash: 158f470a27a242bac145152362b3689d Richard Freeman 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