Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[Eli Zaretskii]

Hi,

I was asked by Ozkan Sezer (CC'ed) whether I'd agree to relicense
include/filenames.h under LGPL2+ instead of GPL2+.

I talked to Richard Stallman (in private email), and he authorized the
change.  So now I'm proposing the corresponding change to you.

Thanks.

P.S.  Please CC me on any responses, as I'm not subscribed to this
list.


======================================================================
Relicense include/filenames.h as LGPL2+.

include/ChangeLog:

2016-09-24  Eli Zaretskii  <eliz@gnu.org>

	* filenames.h: Relicense as LGPL 2.1 or later.

diff --git a/include/filenames.h b/include/filenames.h
index 44553e4..b933bcf 100644
--- a/include/filenames.h
+++ b/include/filenames.h
@@ -10,18 +10,19 @@
 This file is part of BFD, the Binary File Descriptor library.
 
 This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
-it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
-the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
-(at your option) any later version.
+it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as
+published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the
+License, or (at your option) any later version.
 
 This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
-GNU General Public License for more details.
+GNU Lesser General Public License for more details.
 
-You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
-along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
-Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street - Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.  */
+You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
+License along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
+Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street - Fifth Floor, Boston, MA
+02110-1301, USA.  */
 
 #ifndef FILENAMES_H
 #define FILENAMES_H

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[DJ Delorie]

Most of the files in include/ are GPL, not LGPL.  Why is this one
different?

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[Jeff Law]

On 09/27/2016 11:52 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> Most of the files in include/ are GPL, not LGPL.  Why is this one
> different?
Right.  ANd it's not like this file inserts anything of significance 
into the resulting object code.  I'd really like to see more rationale 
behind the request for a license change.

jeff

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, sezeroz@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 13:52:10 -0400
> 
> 
> Most of the files in include/ are GPL, not LGPL.  Why is this one
> different?

Because Ozkan wants to use it in an otherwise LGPL package.

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[Florian Weimer]

* Eli Zaretskii:

>> From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, sezeroz@gmail.com
>> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 13:52:10 -0400
>> 
>> 
>> Most of the files in include/ are GPL, not LGPL.  Why is this one
>> different?
>
> Because Ozkan wants to use it in an otherwise LGPL package.

But then the implementation would need relicensing as well, wouldn't
it?

Having both under different licenses is just confusing.

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, sezeroz@gmail.com
> From: Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:36:11 -0600
> 
> On 09/27/2016 11:52 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> >
> > Most of the files in include/ are GPL, not LGPL.  Why is this one
> > different?
> Right.  ANd it's not like this file inserts anything of significance 
> into the resulting object code.  I'd really like to see more rationale 
> behind the request for a license change.

See my other message.

In the original request I reported that this change was already
approved by Richard Stallman, who asked these same questions.

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[DJ Delorie]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> Because Ozkan wants to use it in an otherwise LGPL package.

Ok, but that doesn't say why it's different.  That reason could apply to
any header in there.  Do we need to convert all headers there to LGPL?
Is this "otherwise LGPL package" in one of our repos, or elsewhere?  Is
he aware that filenames.h includes hashtab.h, which is GPL?

(I'm not opposed to the change, just trying to make sure I understand
it's scope)

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[Ozkan Sezer]

On 9/27/16, DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> Because Ozkan wants to use it in an otherwise LGPL package.
>
> Ok, but that doesn't say why it's different.  That reason could apply to
> any header in there.  Do we need to convert all headers there to LGPL?
> Is this "otherwise LGPL package" in one of our repos, or elsewhere?  Is
> he aware that filenames.h includes hashtab.h, which is GPL?
>
> (I'm not opposed to the change, just trying to make sure I understand
> it's scope)
>

FYI: What I originally wanted was an authorization _for me_ to use
filenames.h in LGPL projects with LGPL license notice; the version
I use is modified (not refer to any external code other than libc,
i.e. only macros and inlines) and doesn't include hashtab.h either;
therefore I believe that my request is fulfilled and is not subject
to the concerns raised by you guys.

As I understand it, Eli wanted to reflect it in the mainline copy,
which is a matter to be decided by gcc and binutils maintainers.

--
O.S.

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
> Cc: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>,  gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,  sezeroz@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:54:59 +0200
> 
> >> Most of the files in include/ are GPL, not LGPL.  Why is this one
> >> different?
> >
> > Because Ozkan wants to use it in an otherwise LGPL package.
> 
> But then the implementation would need relicensing as well, wouldn't
> it?

Which implementation? of Ozkan's library?  Why would it need to
change?  It's perfectly okay to link GPL code with LGPL code, we do
this all the time with libgcc, no?  Or am I missing something?

> Having both under different licenses is just confusing.

AFAIK, that ship sailed a long time ago, in several projects,
including Binutils and GDB.

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, sezeroz@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:00:46 -0400
> 
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> > Because Ozkan wants to use it in an otherwise LGPL package.
> 
> Ok, but that doesn't say why it's different.  That reason could apply to
> any header in there.  Do we need to convert all headers there to LGPL?

I understand that Ozkan only needs that one.  Ozkan?

> Is this "otherwise LGPL package" in one of our repos, or elsewhere?  Is
> he aware that filenames.h includes hashtab.h, which is GPL?
> 
> (I'm not opposed to the change, just trying to make sure I understand
> it's scope)

I'll let Ozkan answer these questions.  But if someone wants to know
which libraries need that, one of them is this:

  http://libtimidity.sourceforge.net/

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[DJ Delorie]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> But then the implementation would need relicensing as well, wouldn't
>> it?
>
> Which implementation? of Ozkan's library?

libiberty's filename_cmp.c is GPL and implements two of the functions in
filenames.h; if those are why he's using it, then it's still GPL unless
filename_cmp.c is changed also.

> Why would it need to
> change?  It's perfectly okay to link GPL code with LGPL code, we do
> this all the time with libgcc, no?  Or am I missing something?

libgcc has an exception that covers most of those cases; be careful when
comparing those to your (his) use case.

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
> Cc: fw@deneb.enyo.de, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, sezeroz@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:23:46 -0400
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> >> But then the implementation would need relicensing as well, wouldn't
> >> it?
> >
> > Which implementation? of Ozkan's library?
> 
> libiberty's filename_cmp.c is GPL and implements two of the functions in
> filenames.h; if those are why he's using it, then it's still GPL unless
> filename_cmp.c is changed also.

I'm guessing he only wants the macros and will delete the rest.  (The
original file as written by me years ago had nothing but those few
macros.)  But I will leave it to Ozkan to give the definitive answer.

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[Ozkan Sezer]

On 9/27/16, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
>> Cc: fw@deneb.enyo.de, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, sezeroz@gmail.com
>> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:23:46 -0400
>>
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> >> But then the implementation would need relicensing as well, wouldn't
>> >> it?
>> >
>> > Which implementation? of Ozkan's library?
>>
>> libiberty's filename_cmp.c is GPL and implements two of the functions in
>> filenames.h; if those are why he's using it, then it's still GPL unless
>> filename_cmp.c is changed also.
>
> I'm guessing he only wants the macros and will delete the rest.  (The
> original file as written by me years ago had nothing but those few
> macros.)  But I will leave it to Ozkan to give the definitive answer.
>

I am not using filename_cmp.c, nor do I include hashtab.h.  The version
I took was an old one with macros only and I added some more macros and
inlines to it. (I replied to these, but I forgot including the CC list,
here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg02048.html )

--
O.S.

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[DJ Delorie]

Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz@gmail.com> writes:
> I am not using filename_cmp.c, nor do I include hashtab.h.  The version
> I took was an old one with macros only and I added some more macros and
> inlines to it. (I replied to these, but I forgot including the CC list,
> here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg02048.html )

I wonder if us relicensing our modified copy would apply to your old
copy.  I mean, are we sure RMS knows you're also relicensing an old
copy, and that the current copy is being relicensed only to avoid future
issues.  If we're only doing it to document the decision, the fact that
hashtab.h and filename_cmp.c are still GPL mostly negates the
effectiveness of our change anyway.

(i.e. it seems like you can get what you need whether we relicense ours
or not, and relicensing ours doesn't have much actual effect).

(again, not opposed to the change, just clarifying everything)

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
> Cc: fw@deneb.enyo.de, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, sezeroz@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:23:46 -0400
> 
> > Why would it need to
> > change?  It's perfectly okay to link GPL code with LGPL code, we do
> > this all the time with libgcc, no?  Or am I missing something?
> 
> libgcc has an exception that covers most of those cases; be careful when
> comparing those to your (his) use case.

OK, then take Gnulib as a better example.  If my arithmetics is
correct, about 70% of its files is LGPL, the rest GPL.  Which doesn't
keep many GNU projects under GPL from using Gnulib.

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, eliz@gnu.org, fw@deneb.enyo.de
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:45:28 -0400
> 
> 
> I wonder if us relicensing our modified copy would apply to your old
> copy.  I mean, are we sure RMS knows you're also relicensing an old
> copy, and that the current copy is being relicensed only to avoid future
> issues.  If we're only doing it to document the decision, the fact that
> hashtab.h and filename_cmp.c are still GPL mostly negates the
> effectiveness of our change anyway.
> 
> (i.e. it seems like you can get what you need whether we relicense ours
> or not, and relicensing ours doesn't have much actual effect).

I see no reason why setting the record straight about license
compatibility should be an issue for us.  Better late than never,
right?

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[Florian Weimer]

* Eli Zaretskii:

> If my arithmetics is correct, about 70% of its files is LGPL, the
> rest GPL.  Which doesn't keep many GNU projects under GPL from using
> Gnulib.

Sorry, I don't understand.  Surely anything released under the LGPL by
the FSF can be upgraded to the current GPLv3?  First upgrade to the
latest LGPL, then switch over to the GPLv3?

(I assume that the FSF releases their works under the “any later
version” regime.)

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[Richard Kenner]

> Sorry, I don't understand.  Surely anything released under the LGPL by
> the FSF can be upgraded to the current GPLv3?  First upgrade to the
> latest LGPL, then switch over to the GPLv3?

That seems correct to me.

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
> Cc: DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com>,  gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,  sezeroz@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:43:53 +0200
> 
> * Eli Zaretskii:
> 
> > If my arithmetics is correct, about 70% of its files is LGPL, the
> > rest GPL.  Which doesn't keep many GNU projects under GPL from using
> > Gnulib.
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand.  Surely anything released under the LGPL by
> the FSF can be upgraded to the current GPLv3?  First upgrade to the
> latest LGPL, then switch over to the GPLv3?
> 
> (I assume that the FSF releases their works under the “any later
> version” regime.)

The above was in response to DJ's questions up-thread:

> > Because Ozkan wants to use it in an otherwise LGPL package.
> 
> But then the implementation would need relicensing as well, wouldn't
> it?
> 
> Having both under different licenses is just confusing.

Did I misunderstand the question?

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[DJ Delorie]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
> Sorry, I don't understand.  Surely anything released under the LGPL by
> the FSF can be upgraded to the current GPLv3?  First upgrade to the
> latest LGPL, then switch over to the GPLv3?
>
> (I assume that the FSF releases their works under the “any later
> version” regime.)

That's not what that means.  The license terms cannot be changed, and
remain "version X or later", even if the user chooses to apply the terms
of some later version.

The "or later" allows the users alternatives for when the FSF fixes a
"license bug" in a newer version; it avoids needing to update all the
licenses.  It also future-proofs the older code, ensuring it's
license-compatible with newer code.

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Sep 27, 2016, Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz@gmail.com> wrote:

> FYI: What I originally wanted was an authorization _for me_ to use
> filenames.h in LGPL projects with LGPL license notice; the version
> I use is modified (not refer to any external code other than libc,
> i.e. only macros and inlines) and doesn't include hashtab.h either;
> therefore I believe that my request is fulfilled and is not subject
> to the concerns raised by you guys.

It would probably be wise for you to amend the modified copy you'll
distribute with the changes proposd by Eli, and to add a link to this
thread in the archives, should anyone be surprised by the different
license.

As for the copy in GCC, that has additional code, we can then keep it
under the stronger copyleft defenses.

Does that work for everyone involved?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter    http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/   FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[Ozkan Sezer]

On 9/28/16, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2016, Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> FYI: What I originally wanted was an authorization _for me_ to use
>> filenames.h in LGPL projects with LGPL license notice; the version
>> I use is modified (not refer to any external code other than libc,
>> i.e. only macros and inlines) and doesn't include hashtab.h either;
>> therefore I believe that my request is fulfilled and is not subject
>> to the concerns raised by you guys.
>
> It would probably be wise for you to amend the modified copy you'll
> distribute with the changes proposd by Eli, and to add a link to this
> thread in the archives, should anyone be surprised by the different
> license.

I believe the following is enough?
https://sf.net/p/libtimidity/libtimidity/ci/master/tree/src/filenames.h

> As for the copy in GCC, that has additional code, we can then keep it
> under the stronger copyleft defenses.
>
> Does that work for everyone involved?

For me, yes.

--
O.S.

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:03:02 -0300
> 
> Does that work for everyone involved?

Except that no one will reimburse me for the time I wasted talking to
several people, with eventually null result...

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[Ozkan Sezer]

On 9/28/16, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:03:02 -0300
>>
>> Does that work for everyone involved?
>
> Except that no one will reimburse me for the time I wasted talking to
> several people, with eventually null result...
>

FWIW, you have my thanks for at least helping my case.

Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:09:19 +0300
> Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> 
> On 9/28/16, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
> >> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> >> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:03:02 -0300
> >>
> >> Does that work for everyone involved?
> >
> > Except that no one will reimburse me for the time I wasted talking to
> > several people, with eventually null result...
> >
> 
> FWIW, you have my thanks for at least helping my case.

It's worth a lot to me, and you are welcome.

I just hoped to actually do what you requested, not just talk about
it.  Now I'm in a situation where, after being authorized to make the
change by whom I consider the legal custodian of that file's license,
I face people who, while not being opposed to the change, don't
actually want to do that.  That doesn't sound right to me.