From: Brian M. <br...@gr...> - 2006-10-08 22:14:14
|
This is in the standard header for Gramps source files: =0A=0A=0A=0A# This = program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify=0A=0A# it u= nder the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by=0A=0A# the= Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or=0A=0A# (at y= our option) any later version.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AHas anyone been following the = GPL v3 debate? Does anyone feel inspired to remove the "or (at your option)= any later version." part?=0A=0AJust curious.=0A=0A~Brian=0A=0A |
From: Alex R. <sh...@gr...> - 2007-06-30 06:10:39
|
Hi all, As you may already know, the version 3 of the GNU GPL has been recently released. Earlier, in the GPLv3 draft days, we discussed this on irc and thought that we probably want to license gramps under GPLv3 when it is released. So now we're carefully reading the released version of the license to make certain that there's no unexpected issues. Can anybody see any potential problems for gramps switching to GPL 3? Any good reason why we should not? Thanks, Alex P.S. Please let's try to avoid flamewars based on the lines of "...but Linus does not switch to GPL 3 so we should not either..." If you have arguments for or against, please bring them up, but it has to be about GRAMPS, not other people's business. --=20 Alexander Roitman http://gramps-project.org |
From: <rom...@ya...> - 2007-06-30 07:51:14
|
Alex, For me, GPL3 legitimate Software patents, which are currently illegal in Europe. Most US patents will never be validated in Europe. Europe allow inventions implemented by software. In addition, the legal system is quite different. The threat and the blackmail are also present, but maybe less systematic. I am far away to be a specialist, just my opinion. Alex Roitman a écrit : > Hi all, > > As you may already know, the version 3 of the GNU GPL has > been recently released. Earlier, in the GPLv3 draft days, > we discussed this on irc and thought that we probably want > to license gramps under GPLv3 when it is released. > > So now we're carefully reading the released version of the > license to make certain that there's no unexpected issues. > > Can anybody see any potential problems for gramps switching > to GPL 3? Any good reason why we should not? > > Thanks, > Alex > > P.S. Please let's try to avoid flamewars based on the lines of > "...but Linus does not switch to GPL 3 so we should not either..." > If you have arguments for or against, please bring them up, > but it has to be about GRAMPS, not other people's business. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users -- Jérôme Rapinat |
From: <rom...@ya...> - 2007-06-30 11:15:00
|
I want to specify that I am not against GPL 3, GPL 2 is not very young and stakes changed, maybe it is a necessary passage. Jérôme a écrit : > Alex, > > > For me, GPL3 legitimate Software patents, which are currently illegal in > Europe. Most US patents will never be validated in Europe. Europe allow > inventions implemented by software. > > In addition, the legal system is quite different. The threat and the > blackmail are also present, but maybe less systematic. > > I am far away to be a specialist, just my opinion. |
From: <bm...@ca...> - 2007-06-30 17:01:55
|
Although software patents are not allowed in the EU, they do have influence= on us, as most software is made in the USA, or is made in the EU to be used al= so in the USA. Personally I await the first linux distro which explicitly states: 'not-allowed for the USA, breaks USA patents', but don't think it will come soon. Anyway, GPL 3 has other improvements, the possibility to use Apache license= d material might be interesting, and some USA legal terms have been removed. I suppose all of us look at other projects from time to time to borrow code pieces, so I would favor the approach: if eg GTK, GLADE, python move to GPL= 3, so do we. If those large projects do not switch we might have the problem o= f not being able to use their code fragments (you cannot mix gpl 2 with gpl 3= !!) So I'm not against GPL 3 from what I know about it (little), but would set some goals: if large teams we "depend" upon move, why not us too. Benny Quoting J=C3=A9r=C3=B4me <rom...@ya...>: > Alex, > > > For me, GPL3 legitimate Software patents, which are currently illegal in > Europe. Most US patents will never be validated in Europe. Europe allow > inventions implemented by software. > > In addition, the legal system is quite different. The threat and the > blackmail are also present, but maybe less systematic. > > I am far away to be a specialist, just my opinion. > > > > Alex Roitman a =C3=A9crit : >> Hi all, >> >> As you may already know, the version 3 of the GNU GPL has >> been recently released. Earlier, in the GPLv3 draft days, >> we discussed this on irc and thought that we probably want >> to license gramps under GPLv3 when it is released. >> >> So now we're carefully reading the released version of the >> license to make certain that there's no unexpected issues. >> >> Can anybody see any potential problems for gramps switching >> to GPL 3? Any good reason why we should not? >> >> Thanks, >> Alex >> >> P.S. Please let's try to avoid flamewars based on the lines of >> "...but Linus does not switch to GPL 3 so we should not either..." >> If you have arguments for or against, please bring them up, >> but it has to be about GRAMPS, not other people's business. >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------= - >> This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express >> Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take >> control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. >> http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gramps-users mailing list >> Gra...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > > -- > J=C3=A9r=C3=B4me Rapinat > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-users mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
From: Alex R. <sh...@gr...> - 2007-06-30 18:00:12
|
On Sat, 2007-06-30 at 19:01 +0200, bm...@ca... wrote: > I suppose all of us look at other projects from time to time to borrow co= de > pieces, so I would favor the approach: if eg GTK, GLADE, python move to G= PL > 3, > so do we. If those large projects do not switch we might have the problem= o > f > not being able to use their code fragments (you cannot mix gpl 2 with gpl= 3 > !!) This is a vague statement. You cannot mix "GPL2 only" with GPL3. You can most definitely mix "GPL2 or later" with GPL3: 1. Take "GPL2 or later" code 2. Include it in GPL3 gramps, mark the piece above as GPL3 3. The whole thing is GPL3 now. Most GPL2 code is in the latter form, "GPL2 or any later version" and is fine for either GPL2 or GPL3. The notable exception is Linux kernel, but I doubt we will borrow the kernel code for gramps :-) In the rare event we have to (GRAMPSIX anybody), we can find the author of the piece we'd like to borrow and ask to relicense this piece for us under GPL3. But this is a long shot :-) Alex --=20 Alexander Roitman http://gramps-project.org |
From: Alex R. <sh...@gr...> - 2006-10-08 23:58:59
|
I personally would be OK with "or (at your option) any later version." in general and with GPLv3 in particular. However, this is irrelevant, because Don is the copyright holder for most of gramps (except for a few files on which the copyright is Don and somebody else). Just my 2 cents, Alex On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 15:13 -0700, Brian Matherly wrote: > This is in the standard header for Gramps source files:=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > # This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify >=20 > # it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by >=20 > # the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or >=20 > # (at your option) any later version. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Has anyone been following the GPL v3 debate? Does anyone feel inspired to= remove the "or (at your option) any later version." part? >=20 > Just curious. >=20 > ~Brian >=20 >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share y= our > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=3Djoin.php&p=3Dsourceforge&CID=3D= DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-devel mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel --=20 Alexander Roitman http://www.gramps-project.org |
From: Don A. <don...@co...> - 2006-10-09 01:22:32
|
I think most of the GPL2 vs. GPL3 issues are irrelevant to GRAMPS. I think that they mostly focus on DRM and patents, which don't really apply to us. I'm quite happy with the GPL2, and from my perspective, it will always be available under GPL2 from me. However, if some distribution wants to release it under GPL3, I don't have an issue with that. I've never really understood the "or any later version" clause. I don't even know how you would go about this. Don On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 15:13 -0700, Brian Matherly wrote: > This is in the standard header for Gramps source files:=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > # This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify >=20 > # it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by >=20 > # the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or >=20 > # (at your option) any later version. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Has anyone been following the GPL v3 debate? Does anyone feel inspired to= remove the "or (at your option) any later version." part? >=20 > Just curious. >=20 > ~Brian >=20 >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share y= our > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=3Djoin.php&p=3Dsourceforge&CID=3D= DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-devel mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel |