Changing Setup's license to GPLv3+

Changing Setup's license to GPLv3+

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 308 bytes --]

Hi guys,


does anything speak against switching Setup's license to GPLv3+?
If nobody complains, I'll bump to v3+ in a week or so.


Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: Changing Setup's license to GPLv3+

[Warren Young]

On Jan 21, 2016, at 3:49 AM, Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com> wrote:
> 
> does anything speak against switching Setup's license to GPLv3+?
> If nobody complains, I'll bump to v3+ in a week or so.

Can you actually do that, legally?  I thought the copyright assignments only applied to the DLL, not to setup.exe, so all setup.exe contributors retained their copyright.

That’s what I was told by cgf back when I did my assignment prior to contributing some work to the tar handling, way back when Robert Collins was the lead on the project.  cgf said I didn’t need to go to that trouble after I’d already sent it in.

I can’t say I’m wild about GPLv3, for reasons which don’t have to be rehashed here, being well-documented already:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#GPLv3_separates_community_further

What actual problem are you trying to solve with the change?

Re: Changing Setup's license to GPLv3+

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1605 bytes --]

On Jan 21 15:55, Warren Young wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 3:49 AM, Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com> wrote:
> > 
> > does anything speak against switching Setup's license to GPLv3+?
> > If nobody complains, I'll bump to v3+ in a week or so.
> 
> Can you actually do that, legally?  I thought the copyright
> assignments only applied to the DLL, not to setup.exe, so all
> setup.exe contributors retained their copyright.

I'm not trying to do that single-handedly and without reason.  I'm
asking here to reach out to the current active developers.  A switch
from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ works without having to reach out to *all*
copyright holder.  The current active devs are sufficient, this is
one of the advantages of the '+' in GPLvX+.

> I can’t say I’m wild about GPLv3, for reasons which don’t have to be
> rehashed here, being well-documented already:

GPLv3 is a nice license, IMHO.  I don't agree with Linus on that call.

>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#GPLv3_separates_community_further
> 
> What actual problem are you trying to solve with the change?

A certain mail to the cygwin ML might require some action.  The action
is most thorougly (and quickly) done by pulling in some code from the
Cygwin DLL.  But Cygwin is under v3+, so it's incompatible with the
current v2+ in Setup.  That's why I'd like to bump version.

Does that make it more tolerable?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: Changing Setup's license to GPLv3+

[Warren Young]

On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com> wrote:
> 
> On Jan 21 15:55, Warren Young wrote:
>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 3:49 AM, Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> does anything speak against switching Setup's license to GPLv3+?
>>> If nobody complains, I'll bump to v3+ in a week or so.
>> 
>> Can you actually do that, legally?  I thought the copyright
>> assignments only applied to the DLL, not to setup.exe, so all
>> setup.exe contributors retained their copyright.
> 
> I'm not trying to do that single-handedly and without reason.  I'm
> asking here to reach out to the current active developers.  A switch
> from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ works without having to reach out to *all*
> copyright holder.

I don’t think I agree with that.

Let’s say I write a standalone program and license it under GPLv2+ and give you a copy.  You can’t then relicense it under GPLv3 or GPLv3+ just because I said “or later” in the license.  *I* can relicense it, but only because I hold the original copyright.

All “or later” gives you the right to do is treat the code *as if* I had originally licensed it as v3, and then only if you want to.  This lets you link v2+ code to v3.  (But not v2-only code to v3!  More below.)

I think you’d still have to get permission from all people who still have code in the current setup.exe sources.

>> I can’t say I’m wild about GPLv3, for reasons which don’t have to be
>> rehashed here, being well-documented already:
> 
> GPLv3 is a nice license, IMHO.  I don't agree with Linus on that call.

It’s about a lot more than just Linus Torvalds and his personality quirks.

If you look at license stats, GPL is falling:

  http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2013/lcs-slides-aaronw/#/rm-chart
  https://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2011/12/15/on-the-continuing-decline-of-the-gpl/

We’re seeing a big shift towards permissive licenses, and I think the GPLv3 controversies have a lot to do with that.

>> What actual problem are you trying to solve with the change?
> 
> A certain mail to the cygwin ML might require some action.  The action
> is most thorougly (and quickly) done by pulling in some code from the
> Cygwin DLL.  But Cygwin is under v3+, so it's incompatible with the
> current v2+ in Setup.  That's why I'd like to bump version.

As I understand it (and IANAL) the GPL v2/v3 incompatibility only occurs with GPLv2-only licenses.  See the chart here, from the FSF:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Compatibility_and_multi-licensing

I suspect it is not kosher to intermix v2+ and v3+ code in the same file, but putting the v3+ code copied from the DLL into a separate file and calling out to it from the v2 code as if it were a library may be okay.

I could be wrong, in which case this is another argument against GPLv3.  The thing is viral even to past versions of itself.

FWIW, I’m no zealot.  I’ve got GPL’d and LGPL’d code out in the world.  I’m just pointing out that restrictive licenses (“free,” hah!) bring along a bag of problems.  GPLv3 adds a bunch more restrictions.

Re: Changing Setup's license to GPLv3+

[Eric Blake]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4865 bytes --]

On 01/22/2016 11:57 AM, Warren Young wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 21 15:55, Warren Young wrote:
>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 3:49 AM, Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> does anything speak against switching Setup's license to GPLv3+?
>>>> If nobody complains, I'll bump to v3+ in a week or so.
>>>
>>> Can you actually do that, legally?  I thought the copyright
>>> assignments only applied to the DLL, not to setup.exe, so all
>>> setup.exe contributors retained their copyright.
>>
>> I'm not trying to do that single-handedly and without reason.  I'm
>> asking here to reach out to the current active developers.  A switch
>> from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ works without having to reach out to *all*
>> copyright holder.
> 
> I don’t think I agree with that.

Why not? GPLv2+ lets ANYONE with possession of a copy of the source code
re-release THEIR copy under GPLv3+.  Yes, such a relicensing would mean
that if YOU were one of the original contributors, and strongly want
your future contributions to remain GPLv2+, then you would no longer be
able to contribute.  But your existing contributions are still GPLv2+
(anyone can go to the point in time before the relicensing to grab a
copy of your code still under GPLv2+).  And the fact that the cygwin
community (and current active contributors in particular) is in
possession of a copy of your original work, and chooses to relicense
that copy to GPLv3+, is not in violation of your original license.

> 
> Let’s say I write a standalone program and license it under GPLv2+ and give you a copy.  You can’t then relicense it under GPLv3 or GPLv3+ just because I said “or later” in the license.

Yes, I can.  You gave me the permission to do so, by stating "or later".

>  *I* can relicense it, but only because I hold the original copyright.

Yes, you can.

If it were GPLv2-only, then ONLY you can relicense to GPLv3 or GPLv3+.
But it's not GPLv2-only.

> 
> All “or later” gives you the right to do is treat the code *as if* I had originally licensed it as v3, and then only if you want to.  This lets you link v2+ code to v3.  (But not v2-only code to v3!  More below.)

The combined work is necessarily v3 if I invoke the "or later" clause by
linking your v2+ work with my v3 work.

But you are correct that your v2-only work cannot be linked to my v3 work.

> 
> I think you’d still have to get permission from all people who still have code in the current setup.exe sources.

Or rather, if a relicensing requires explicit permission, it must be
granted by the respective copyright holders (not necessarily the
original contributor, if the original contributor assigned copyright to
someone else).

But I think the "or later" clause means that we don't need explicit
permission.

...
>>> What actual problem are you trying to solve with the change?
>>
>> A certain mail to the cygwin ML might require some action.  The action
>> is most thorougly (and quickly) done by pulling in some code from the
>> Cygwin DLL.  But Cygwin is under v3+, so it's incompatible with the
>> current v2+ in Setup.  That's why I'd like to bump version.

I don't think I have any personal setup.exe contributions?  Oh wait,
perhaps I do (a long time ago, I helped fix use of bash for postinstall
scripts).  I'm personally okay with such a move.

> 
> As I understand it (and IANAL) the GPL v2/v3 incompatibility only occurs with GPLv2-only licenses.  See the chart here, from the FSF:
> 
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Compatibility_and_multi-licensing
> 
> I suspect it is not kosher to intermix v2+ and v3+ code in the same file, but putting the v3+ code copied from the DLL into a separate file and calling out to it from the v2 code as if it were a library may be okay.

That may be overly paranoid, but it is also easy enough to do.  I'm also
fine if we keep original code with v2+ labels, add new v3+ code in
separate files, link it all together, and slap GPLv3+ on the final
resulting executable. That is the only license with which we can ship
the final product (due to v3 code being present, we have to exercise the
"or later" clause of all linked-in v2 code), whether or not the
individual source files still state v2+.

> 
> I could be wrong, in which case this is another argument against GPLv3.  The thing is viral even to past versions of itself.
> 
> FWIW, I’m no zealot.  I’ve got GPL’d and LGPL’d code out in the world.  I’m just pointing out that restrictive licenses (“free,” hah!) bring along a bag of problems.  GPLv3 adds a bunch more restrictions.
> 

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 604 bytes --]

Re: Changing Setup's license to GPLv3+

[Achim Gratz]

Warren Young writes:
>>  I'm not trying to do that single-handedly and without reason.  I'm
>> asking here to reach out to the current active developers.  A switch
>> from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ works without having to reach out to *all*
>> copyright holder.
>
> I don’t think I agree with that.

"9. Each version [of the GPL] is given a distinguishing version number. If
the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to
it and “any later version”, you have the option of following the terms
and conditions either of that version or of any later version published
by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a
version number of this License, you may choose any version ever
published by the Free Software Foundation."

> Let’s say I write a standalone program and license it under GPLv2+ and
> give you a copy.  You can’t then relicense it under GPLv3 or GPLv3+
> just because I said “or later” in the license.  *I* can relicense it,
> but only because I hold the original copyright.

"2.b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License."

> All “or later” gives you the right to do is treat the code *as if* I
> had originally licensed it as v3, and then only if you want to.  This
> lets you link v2+ code to v3.  (But not v2-only code to v3!  More
> below.)

But it does permit this.  That's the whole point of licensing GPLv2+
rather than GPLv2.

> I think you’d still have to get permission from all people who still
> have code in the current setup.exe sources.

The copyright isn't touched in any way and the license the copyright
holders chose expressedly allows the distribution under a later version
of that license.


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

SD adaptation for Waldorf microQ V2.22R2:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSDada

Re: Changing Setup's license to GPLv3+

[Achim Gratz]

Corinna Vinschen writes:
> does anything speak against switching Setup's license to GPLv3+?
> If nobody complains, I'll bump to v3+ in a week or so.

I have no problem with that.


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

Waldorf MIDI Implementation & additional documentation:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfDocs

Re: Changing Setup's license to GPLv3+

[Corinna Vinschen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3978 bytes --]

On Jan 22 12:12, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 01/22/2016 11:57 AM, Warren Young wrote:
> > On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Corinna Vinschen
> > <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com> wrote:
> > I think you’d still have to get permission from all people who still
> > have code in the current setup.exe sources.
> 
> Or rather, if a relicensing requires explicit permission, it must be
> granted by the respective copyright holders (not necessarily the
> original contributor, if the original contributor assigned copyright to
> someone else).
> 
> But I think the "or later" clause means that we don't need explicit
> permission.

Right.  Let's start with a clarification.  When I write "we" or "our"
below, it's "we, the hackers actively contributing to the Cygwin setup
tool".

We (see above) would certainly need permission from all copyright
holders when switching to a non-GPL license.  But the '+' implies that
we can go forward with the license for any new version of setup at our
bunch of die-hards at cygwin.com discretion.

And why should this be a problem?  The installer is not a library.  It's
just a complete, self-contained executable.  There are no dependencies
on the tool, other than we need it to install Cygwin.  No other tool
will be in any kind of trouble because the license of setup.exe changes.

> > I suspect it is not kosher to intermix v2+ and v3+ code in the same
> > file, but putting the v3+ code copied from the DLL into a separate
> > file and calling out to it from the v2 code as if it were a library
> > may be okay.

I don't think the library comparison is valid if the source code is an
integral part of the sources and the resulting binary.  But...

> That may be overly paranoid, but it is also easy enough to do.  I'm also
> fine if we keep original code with v2+ labels, add new v3+ code in
> separate files, link it all together, and slap GPLv3+ on the final
> resulting executable. That is the only license with which we can ship
> the final product (due to v3 code being present, we have to exercise the
> "or later" clause of all linked-in v2 code), whether or not the
> individual source files still state v2+.

...admittedly I hadn't thought about this detail.  I agree with Eric.
We can keep the license of existing code at v2+ if that comforts people,
but adding v3+ code in a v3+'ed source file bumps the license of the
entire tool, our project's installer, to v3+.

> > I could be wrong, in which case this is another argument against
> > GPLv3.  The thing is viral even to past versions of itself.
> > 
> > FWIW, I’m no zealot.  I’ve got GPL’d and LGPL’d code out in the
> > world.  I’m just pointing out that restrictive licenses (“free,”
> > hah!) bring along a bag of problems.  GPLv3 adds a bunch more
> > restrictions.

No offense, but you're looking at it from the wrong angle, as so many
developers do.

The GPL is *not* written in the first place to keep developers happy.
If you choose to publish code under the GPL you are supposed to make a
conscious decision to protect the *user*.  The GPL is written to protect
the user from not having a chance to inspect the code.  The GPLv3
specificially adds wording to protect the user additionally from not
being able to tweak a device running GPLed code (tivoisation), and from
patent discrimination.  These points make the GPLv3 partially
incompatible with GPLv2, but they try to fix real problems which simply
were not on the radar back in, what, 1992 or so.

There's more, like compatibility with other licenses.  The FUD spread
in terms of that are very disappointing, but wrong.  The GPLv3 *adds*
compatibility with licenses GPLv2 was incompatible with, not the other
way around.

Well, there's more, but I hope you get my point.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: Changing Setup's license to GPLv3+

[Yaakov Selkowitz]

On 2016-01-21 04:49, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> does anything speak against switching Setup's license to GPLv3+?
> If nobody complains, I'll bump to v3+ in a week or so.

Fine with me wrt my contributions.

-- 
Yaakov