From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 100741 invoked by alias); 22 Jan 2016 18:57:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 100723 invoked by uid 89); 22 Jan 2016 18:57:24 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=warren, Young, Warren, H*r:qmail-ldap-1.03 X-HELO: etr-usa.com Received: from etr-usa.com (HELO etr-usa.com) (130.94.180.135) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 Jan 2016 18:57:22 +0000 Received: (qmail 47257 invoked by uid 13447); 22 Jan 2016 18:57:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO polypore.west.etr-usa.com) ([73.26.17.49]) (envelope-sender ) by 130.94.180.135 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 22 Jan 2016 18:57:21 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) Subject: Re: Changing Setup's license to GPLv3+ From: Warren Young In-Reply-To: <20160122165417.GA23147@calimero.vinschen.de> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 18:57:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20160121104928.GA30823@calimero.vinschen.de> <20160122165417.GA23147@calimero.vinschen.de> To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-01/txt/msg00033.txt.bz2 On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Corinna Vinschen w= rote: >=20 > On Jan 21 15:55, Warren Young wrote: >> On Jan 21, 2016, at 3:49 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>=20 >>> does anything speak against switching Setup's license to GPLv3+? >>> If nobody complains, I'll bump to v3+ in a week or so. >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > 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=E2=80=99t think I agree with that. Let=E2=80=99s say I write a standalone program and license it under GPLv2+ = and give you a copy. You can=E2=80=99t then relicense it under GPLv3 or GP= Lv3+ just because I said =E2=80=9Cor later=E2=80=9D in the license. *I* ca= n relicense it, but only because I hold the original copyright. All =E2=80=9Cor later=E2=80=9D 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 belo= w.) I think you=E2=80=99d still have to get permission from all people who stil= l have code in the current setup.exe sources. >> I can=E2=80=99t say I=E2=80=99m wild about GPLv3, for reasons which don= =E2=80=99t have to be >> rehashed here, being well-documented already: >=20 > GPLv3 is a nice license, IMHO. I don't agree with Linus on that call. It=E2=80=99s 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-dec= line-of-the-gpl/ We=E2=80=99re seeing a big shift towards permissive licenses, and I think t= he GPLv3 controversies have a lot to do with that. >> What actual problem are you trying to solve with the change? >=20 > 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 wi= th GPLv2-only licenses. See the chart here, from the FSF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Compatibility_an= d_multi-licensing I suspect it is not kosher to intermix v2+ and v3+ code in the same file, b= ut putting the v3+ code copied from the DLL into a separate file and callin= g 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. Th= e thing is viral even to past versions of itself. FWIW, I=E2=80=99m no zealot. I=E2=80=99ve got GPL=E2=80=99d and LGPL=E2=80= =99d code out in the world. I=E2=80=99m just pointing out that restrictive= licenses (=E2=80=9Cfree,=E2=80=9D hah!) bring along a bag of problems. GP= Lv3 adds a bunch more restrictions.