Re: GPLv3

Re: GPLv3

[Brian Dessent]

Eric Blake wrote:

> tar 1.18 was just released, and is one of the first GNU packages that
> requires GPLv3 or later.  Meanwhile, cygwin is explicit in requiring
> exactly GPLv2.  According to the GPLv3 FAQ, http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq,
> it is NOT okay for a GPLv3 program to link against a GPLv2-only library.
> So, what is the consensus - am I allowed to upload tar 1.18, or is cygwin
> forevermore stuck at tar 1.17 as the last GPLv2 release, because of the
> fact that building an image of tar 1.18 linked against cygwin1.dll
> constitutes a license violation?

Remember that the Cygwin license includes an OSI exemption, so as long
as GPLv3 is eventually OSI certified (as if...) it's fine on the Cygwin
side.  I don't know about the other direction though.

Brian

GPLv3

[Eric Blake]

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

tar 1.18 was just released, and is one of the first GNU packages that
requires GPLv3 or later.  Meanwhile, cygwin is explicit in requiring
exactly GPLv2.  According to the GPLv3 FAQ, http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq,
it is NOT okay for a GPLv3 program to link against a GPLv2-only library.
So, what is the consensus - am I allowed to upload tar 1.18, or is cygwin
forevermore stuck at tar 1.17 as the last GPLv2 release, because of the
fact that building an image of tar 1.18 linked against cygwin1.dll
constitutes a license violation?

And this problem will only grow in the near future - other cygwin packages
that I maintain have discussed in their mailing lists that they are
actively in the process of converting to GPLv3, including findutils
(release expected tomorrow) and m4 (release expected later in the week).

- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!

Eric Blake             ebb9@byu.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGhyQW84KuGfSFAYARAm1hAJ95tpXEgzvMe4aUNXDdQ3wn0lVt/gCff7fa
73gosNY4OYf3Q43aRe3bMZg=
=BeWb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: GPLv3

[Eric Blake]

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

According to Brian Dessent on 6/30/2007 10:12 PM:
>> So, what is the consensus - am I allowed to upload tar 1.18, or is cygwin
>> forevermore stuck at tar 1.17 as the last GPLv2 release, because of the
>> fact that building an image of tar 1.18 linked against cygwin1.dll
>> constitutes a license violation?
> 
> Remember that the Cygwin license includes an OSI exemption, so as long
> as GPLv3 is eventually OSI certified (as if...) it's fine on the Cygwin
> side.  I don't know about the other direction though.

Thanks for the reminder about the exception clause.  Since packaging tar
1.18 does not modify the sources to cygwin1.dll, I agree that the GPLv2
exception offered by cygwin is applicable here.  I don't think GPLv3 will
have any problem achieving OSI exemption, so I went ahead and uploaded tar
1.18.

- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!

Eric Blake             ebb9@byu.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGh7da84KuGfSFAYARAkBeAJkBBaUW2kxYXGCR7iSTzMKDtH78lgCg1lKf
94vXSl2zetTLNXk4BjAOtK8=
=GyNX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: GPLv3

[Eric Blake]

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

According to Eric Blake on 7/1/2007 8:16 AM:
> Thanks for the reminder about the exception clause.  Since packaging tar
> 1.18 does not modify the sources to cygwin1.dll, I agree that the GPLv2
> exception offered by cygwin is applicable here.  I don't think GPLv3 will
> have any problem achieving OSI exemption, so I went ahead and uploaded tar
                                 ^^^^^^^^^
s/exemption/certification/
> 1.18.
> 

- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!

Eric Blake             ebb9@byu.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGh7kh84KuGfSFAYARAoY3AJ9db/zOanxXJVrBW+bNVK3g89JAqACfUnvA
aI97GzUEhVFdtSamiWA27AE=
=70HC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

RE: GPLv3

[Dave Korn]

On 03 July 2007 00:53, Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) wrote:

[ Thread TITTLL'd.  CC'ing you just once to let you know. ]

> While wrt GPLv3 software I agree that this is purely hypothetical and
> certainly soon to be moot (when OSI certifies GPLv3), one could conceive
> another case which would be relevant and possibly damaging to RH:
> 
> 1) 3PP distributes clearly non-FOSS software depending on Cygwin (either
> w/o Cygwin itself or with Cygwin and sources).
> 
> 2) RH sues 3PP for violation of Cygwin license.
> 
> 3) Defendant successfully argues that "complies with" != "certified",
> and continues with elaborate explanation how his license supposedly
> complies with OSI definition.
> 
> 4) Court (or, worse yet, uneducated, uninformed, layman jury) falls for
> defendant's hot air.
> 
> While I'm certain RH has excellent lawyers and this argument would be
> well fought, this "subjective judgement", as you put it, could make this
> problematic, or just unnecessary difficult (and expensive) at best.

  Of course, this is a general legal principle: if it comes to court, everyone
has lost already (except the lawyers).  But the generic principles of contract
law are fairly clear: as long as RH aren't irrational or wildly unreasonable
in their decision on whether or not it 'complies', it's up to them and their
definition, because they're the people you're in contract with.

  I've worked in computer games in the past.  The contract always comes with a
clause that allows the publisher to reject the game if it is not up to a
'satisfactory' standard, or to demand fixes and improvements without extra
payment.  The judgement of what is 'satisfactory' is, to a very great degree,
whatever the publishers say does or does not satisfy them; unless they are
hugely and blatantly unreasonable, the court will let them set their own
standards, because those are the standards you agreed to when you signed up to
the contract.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....