This is just a general question on the use of GPLv3 for eSpeak.
I was just wondering what the motivation behind using the new version of the license was.
The reason I ask is that it is incompatible with v2, and there has been some interest to include an eSpeak plugin in Rockbox[1], which has actually been pretty successful, apart from the fact that we can't actually incorporate it into the source repository because of the licensing conflicts.
It's pretty infeasible for Rockbox to change licenses, because of the number of contributors that would need to be contacted and give permission (320 people at last count, not to mention other GPLv2 source code snippets from other projects), so I was just wondering if there was any possibility of having a GPLv2 version released.
> I was just wondering what the motivation behind using the new version of the license was.
GPLv3 includes changes to fix loopholes which had become apparent in the GPLv2 which could allow subversion of the aims of the GPL. See http://gplv3.fsf.org/.
>we can't actually incorporate it into the source repository because of the licensing conflicts.
That does not seem to be a problem for Linux distributions such as Ubuntu and Debian which include both GPLv2 and GPLv3 code.
> It's pretty infeasible for Rockbox to change licenses, because of the number of contributors that would need to be contacted and give permission (320 people at last count, not to mention other GPLv2 source code snippets from other projects),
This does not seem to be the case. I have looked at some of the Rockbox source code files and they do not specify a specific GPL version number. The Rockbox file "COPYING" states:
"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."
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I must first say that I'm not too familiar with the legalities entirely, so I'm regurgitating what I'm being told by others.
However, that aside, linux in general is split in such a way so that they can include modules separately, which are then exempt from the requirements of the GPL, but rockbox is coded in such a way that it would be very difficult to accomplish this, unfortunately.
>This does not seem to be the case. I have looked at some of the Rockbox source code files and they do not specify a specific GPL version number. The Rockbox file "COPYING" states: ...
The license for the Rockbox source actually doesn't include the "any later version" bit, and also specifies that it's GPLv2, so we don't have the freedom to change as we wish.
On top of that, we use GPLv2 code for a lot of our codecs, and a few games, so we'd need them to change too, or drop support for them, which would be highly undesirable.
I don't mean to put pressure on you to release under the older license, but I'm basically asking you if this license decision is possible to revert or if you at least would be able to reconsider this, as otherwise we'll be forced to go back to the most recent GPLv2 version of espeak to use that.
Thanks again, Will.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
> The license for the Rockbox source actually doesn't include the "any later version" bit, and also specifies that it's GPLv2, so we don't have the freedom to change as we wish.
The source code files which I saw (such as apps/playback.c, apps/action.c), don't specify any GPL version. This means that you can assume any version of GPL. You could change them to any version (such as "GPLv2 or later") without seeking further permission from the authors.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
> I was just wondering what the motivation behind using the new version of the license was.
GPLv3 includes changes to fix loopholes which had become apparent in the GPLv2 which could allow subversion of the aims of the GPL. See http://gplv3.fsf.org/.
Does this mean that you are opposed to the LGPL?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
This is just a general question on the use of GPLv3 for eSpeak.
I was just wondering what the motivation behind using the new version of the license was.
The reason I ask is that it is incompatible with v2, and there has been some interest to include an eSpeak plugin in Rockbox[1], which has actually been pretty successful, apart from the fact that we can't actually incorporate it into the source repository because of the licensing conflicts.
It's pretty infeasible for Rockbox to change licenses, because of the number of contributors that would need to be contacted and give permission (320 people at last count, not to mention other GPLv2 source code snippets from other projects), so I was just wondering if there was any possibility of having a GPLv2 version released.
Cheers, Will.
[1] http://www.rockbox.org/
> I was just wondering what the motivation behind using the new version of the license was.
GPLv3 includes changes to fix loopholes which had become apparent in the GPLv2 which could allow subversion of the aims of the GPL. See http://gplv3.fsf.org/.
>we can't actually incorporate it into the source repository because of the licensing conflicts.
That does not seem to be a problem for Linux distributions such as Ubuntu and Debian which include both GPLv2 and GPLv3 code.
> It's pretty infeasible for Rockbox to change licenses, because of the number of contributors that would need to be contacted and give permission (320 people at last count, not to mention other GPLv2 source code snippets from other projects),
This does not seem to be the case. I have looked at some of the Rockbox source code files and they do not specify a specific GPL version number. The Rockbox file "COPYING" states:
"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."
Thanks for taking the time to respond to me.
I must first say that I'm not too familiar with the legalities entirely, so I'm regurgitating what I'm being told by others.
However, that aside, linux in general is split in such a way so that they can include modules separately, which are then exempt from the requirements of the GPL, but rockbox is coded in such a way that it would be very difficult to accomplish this, unfortunately.
>This does not seem to be the case. I have looked at some of the Rockbox source code files and they do not specify a specific GPL version number. The Rockbox file "COPYING" states: ...
The license for the Rockbox source actually doesn't include the "any later version" bit, and also specifies that it's GPLv2, so we don't have the freedom to change as we wish.
On top of that, we use GPLv2 code for a lot of our codecs, and a few games, so we'd need them to change too, or drop support for them, which would be highly undesirable.
I don't mean to put pressure on you to release under the older license, but I'm basically asking you if this license decision is possible to revert or if you at least would be able to reconsider this, as otherwise we'll be forced to go back to the most recent GPLv2 version of espeak to use that.
Thanks again, Will.
> The license for the Rockbox source actually doesn't include the "any later version" bit, and also specifies that it's GPLv2, so we don't have the freedom to change as we wish.
The source code files which I saw (such as apps/playback.c, apps/action.c), don't specify any GPL version. This means that you can assume any version of GPL. You could change them to any version (such as "GPLv2 or later") without seeking further permission from the authors.
Does this mean that you are opposed to the LGPL?