Menu
▾
▴
notion-devel
|
From: Juri H. <ju...@fa...> - 2010-08-16 18:14:55
|
Hello everybody, on irc (freenode, #ion and #notion) we have discussed and found a solution for the license terms issue. So there is a group of people who would like to finally start contributing code to notion. We have tried to contact the admins of no...@sf... over sourceforge web-interface with no luck. As our last attempt to contact the admins, I post this mail to the ML in hope to make any admin appear. If that won't success, we would need to fork an unborn fork. That would be pretty ugly. So, dear admins, if you read that, yell at us in here! :) Regards Juri |
|
From: M R. <mr...@gm...> - 2010-08-19 01:39:02
|
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 19:58 +0200, Juri Hamburg wrote: > Hello everybody, > > on irc (freenode, #ion and #notion) we have discussed and found a > solution for the license terms issue. So there is a group of people who > would like to finally start contributing code to notion. We have tried > to contact the admins of no...@sf... over sourceforge web-interface > with no luck. As our last attempt to contact the admins, I post this > mail to the ML in hope to make any admin appear. If that won't success, > we would need to fork an unborn fork. That would be pretty ugly. > > So, dear admins, if you read that, yell at us in here! :) > > Regards > Juri Hi, sorry for being inactive the past few months (college finals, then summer and whatnot), i didn't get your sf emails because, apparently, sf doesn't notify you of new messages unless you asked it to (that answers a lot of questions for me personally, since i've been on the other end of this situation many, many times before, but, i digress). I replied to your pm regarding code contribution/git access minutes ago and while you come back to me, i wish you could brief us (i.e. those who have not been following the discussion on IRC) on what you came up with regarding the license, contribution, coding, etc... and where we need to pick up the discussion from this moment forward. thank you, M Rawash |
|
From: Arnout E. <no...@bz...> - 2010-08-19 23:17:02
|
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 02:30:33AM +0200, M Rawash wrote: > On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 19:58 +0200, Juri Hamburg wrote: > > there is a group of people who would like to finally start contributing > > code to notion. We have tried to contact the admins of no...@sf... over > > sourceforge web-interface with no luck. > > Hi, sorry for being inactive the past few months (college finals, then > summer and whatnot), No problem, glad to hear from you :) > I replied to your pm regarding code contribution/git access minutes ago > and while you come back to me, i wish you could brief us (i.e. those who > have not been following the discussion on IRC) on what you came up with > regarding the license Reading the lists and IRC, it would appear most people would be fairly happy forking the latest ion3, keeping the LGPL-with-supplemental-naming-clause license. While not strictly 'as free' as the LGPL, it would be 'as free' as ion3, and perhaps even DFSG-free (the DFSG explicitly mentions 'The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software', though it discourages such restrictions.). This seems the simplest way forward. > contribution, coding, etc... For starters, I think having a public git (or other version control) repo is important 'psychologically': it is part of making notion an 'active project' instead of a dead-end download. As mentioned in private email, I'd like to contribute a first version of a website ( http://arnout.engelen.eu/files/dev/notion/site/ ). I'd also like to contribute (if no-one beats me to it) patches for including mod_xinerama and some default settings (configuration for keyboard 'multimedia keys' comes to mind). Other topics for the future might be supporting more of the NETWM spec and thinking of a way to make switching between dual-head and single-head easier (useful for laptops), but I'm not sure what that should look like yet. As for going forward, I'd say there will need to be someone who can set up an initial git repo, at least 1 person reviewing and (eventually) applying patches, and someone would have to upload and maintain a project website. This could all be done by the current admins, or you could consider adding some more people to the project - the important thing is that it happens. > and where we need to pick up the discussion from this moment forward. Ideally, IMHO, the following discussion should be along the lines of: "I think notion would be improved by doing X, and I'm willing to help, let's do it!" :). Kind regards, Arnout |
|
From: ebik <eb...@dr...> - 2010-08-20 00:01:30
Attachments:
signature.asc
|
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 01:01:38 +0200
Arnout Engelen <no...@bz...> wrote:
> As for going forward, I'd say there will need to be someone who can
> set up an initial git repo, at least 1 person reviewing and
> (eventually) applying patches, and someone would have to upload and
> maintain a project website. This could all be done by the current
> admins, or you could consider adding some more people to the project
> - the important thing is that it happens.
I don't have time enough for reviewing (now), but I'd like to have
possibility to review the patches. I think I have enough knowledge
about the programming, I use ion. In fact I can write programs (even
objective) in lua now, I learned it due to ion.
Also I would like to discuss some ideas. E.g., the mod_xinerama should
be thrown away and replaced by mod_xrandr. Also the functionality should
be split into two independent parts: mod_xrandr itself should be able
just to provide informations from xrandr in some 'general' way, as well
as the hooks for watching changes.
The code that sets up the screens should be IMHO lua script, that just
uses the information provided by mod_xrandr. The windowmanager will be
more customizable this way, and there will be no loss in performance as
the script will be executed on startup and on screen setup change.
I'd also mention the only patch I submited (It is not well programmed
as I had little time). That patch changes the way of dividing the
space between tab labels from "equal lengths" to "divide by needs".
I.e., if you have two tabs, one titled "xterm" and second titled
"The web page with a long title - Firefox", then the second tab gets
more space, and both will be not truncated. (The algorithm is more
complex, but it is well described in the mail I sent to the list.)
I can clean up and resubmit the patch once the repository will be up.
--
Tomáš 'ebík' Ebenlendr
PF 2010.63303710046
|
|
From: Domingo G. <gom...@ho...> - 2010-08-20 11:02:53
|
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 01:49:01 +0200
From: eb...@dr...
To: not...@li...
Subject: [Notion-devel] (not) reviewing, etc. Re: Is any of the no...@sf... admins around?
Also I would like to discuss some ideas. E.g., the mod_xinerama should
be thrown away and replaced by mod_xrandr. Also the functionality should
be split into two independent parts: mod_xrandr itself should be able
just to provide informations from xrandr in some 'general' way, as well
as the hooks for watching changes.
The code that sets up the screens should be IMHO lua script, that just
uses the information provided by mod_xrandr. The windowmanager will be
more customizable this way, and there will be no loss in performance as
the script will be executed on startup and on screen setup change.
I'd also mention the only patch I submited (It is not well programmed
as I had little time). That patch changes the way of dividing the
space between tab labels from "equal lengths" to "divide by needs".
I.e., if you have two tabs, one titled "xterm" and second titled
"The web page with a long title - Firefox", then the second tab gets
more space, and both will be not truncated. (The algorithm is more
complex, but it is well described in the mail I sent to the list.)
I can clean up and resubmit the patch once the repository will be up.
--
Tomáš 'ebík' Ebenlendr
PF 2010.63303710046
I am really happy to see some movement in notion list. I didn't change to
notion from ion because I didn't see any kind of movement.
I hope that this trend is staying.
Cheers,
Domingo
|
|
From: M R. <mr...@gm...> - 2010-08-20 04:05:08
|
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 01:01 +0200, Arnout Engelen wrote: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 02:30:33AM +0200, M Rawash wrote: > > Hi, sorry for being inactive the past few months (college finals, then > > summer and whatnot), > > No problem, glad to hear from you :) thanks =) > Reading the lists and IRC, it would appear most people would be fairly happy > forking the latest ion3, keeping the LGPL-with-supplemental-naming-clause > license. While not strictly 'as free' as the LGPL, it would be 'as free' as > ion3, and perhaps even DFSG-free (the DFSG explicitly mentions 'The license > may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the > original software', though it discourages such restrictions.). This seems the > simplest way forward. I can't say i'm 100% behind this, but it does seem like our best/last option at this point, I'd also suggest that we have a separate license file (let's say LICENSE-notion) which we can refer to instead of Tuomo's made-up license, this way we will at least look like we're trying to make it "free" (also, doesn't put us at odds with the LGPL; continuing the (ab)use of Tuomo's license does!), but more on that later... > > contribution, coding, etc... > > For starters, I think having a public git (or other version control) repo is > important 'psychologically': it is part of making notion an 'active project' > instead of a dead-end download. indeed. > As mentioned in private email, I'd like to contribute a first version of a > website ( http://arnout.engelen.eu/files/dev/notion/site/ ). looks good, send me your sf username so i can grant you admin access to upload it to the sf site (if it's ok with everybody), we will discuss the mission statement and all the other details later. > I'd also like to > contribute (if no-one beats me to it) patches for including mod_xinerama and > some default settings (configuration for keyboard 'multimedia keys' comes to > mind). Other topics for the future might be supporting more of the NETWM spec > and thinking of a way to make switching between dual-head and single-head > easier (useful for laptops), but I'm not sure what that should look like yet. sounds like development-talk (not a moment too soon), i'd say we need to hear from more people though, any thing beyond the initial commit (which should be as pristine as possible, IMHO) should be discussed in a brainstorming/hacking session, where we will, hopefully, get to test some people's work, or at least hear some ideas; what gets in will eventually be determined by the reviewer(s)/lead developer(s), whomever they may eventually be. > As for going forward, I'd say there will need to be someone who can set up an > initial git repo, at least 1 person reviewing and (eventually) applying > patches, and someone would have to upload and maintain a project website. This > could all be done by the current admins, or you could consider adding some more > people to the project - the important thing is that it happens. I'm all for adding more admins to the project (notion is nobody's baby at this point), and i hope for more people who wish to actively contribute to this project to come forward (granted they know what they are doing/getting into). > > and where we need to pick up the discussion from this moment forward. > > Ideally, IMHO, the following discussion should be along the lines of: "I think > notion would be improved by doing X, and I'm willing to help, let's do it!" :). here here. regards, M Rawash |
|
From: Olof J. <ol...@et...> - 2010-08-20 05:39:42
|
On 2010-08-20 04:56, M Rawash wrote:
> I can't say i'm 100% behind this, but it does seem like our best/last
> option at this point, I'd also suggest that we have a separate license
> file (let's say LICENSE-notion) which we can refer to instead of Tuomo's
> made-up license, this way we will at least look like we're trying to
> make it "free" (also, doesn't put us at odds with the LGPL; continuing
> the (ab)use of Tuomo's license does!), but more on that later...
It's Tuomo's code, he decides the rules. It's not an abuse, even
though you might not like it. What you propose however sounds like it
could be, but on the other hand it was probably just bad wording...
--
Olof Johansson
irc: zibri on Freenode/OFTC
jabber: ol...@et...
|
|
From: M R. <mr...@gm...> - 2010-08-20 06:47:46
|
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 05:23 +0000, Olof Johansson wrote: > On 2010-08-20 04:56, M Rawash wrote: > > I can't say i'm 100% behind this, but it does seem like our best/last > > option at this point, I'd also suggest that we have a separate license > > file (let's say LICENSE-notion) which we can refer to instead of Tuomo's > > made-up license, this way we will at least look like we're trying to > > make it "free" (also, doesn't put us at odds with the LGPL; continuing > > the (ab)use of Tuomo's license does!), but more on that later... > > It's Tuomo's code, he decides the rules. It's not an abuse, even > though you might not like it. I'm not questioning Tuomo's right to license his work under whatever license he pleases, but the fact remains that it's still an abuse of the LGPL, see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL > What you propose however sounds like it > could be, but on the other hand it was probably just bad wording... how is using a different license for _our_ code an abuse? doesn't that contradict what you just said? no flaming please. regards, M Rawash |
|
From: Arnout E. <arn...@bz...> - 2010-08-20 11:20:41
|
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 01:49:01AM +0200, ebik wrote: > the mod_xinerama should be thrown away and replaced by mod_xrandr. Where do I find the latest version of this module? Regards, Arnout |
|
From: M R. <mr...@gm...> - 2010-08-20 16:06:11
|
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 13:20 +0200, Arnout Engelen wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 01:49:01AM +0200, ebik wrote: > > the mod_xinerama should be thrown away and replaced by mod_xrandr. > > Where do I find the latest version of this module? > here: http://github.com/gwash/mod_xrandr-3 |
|
From: Olof J. <ol...@et...> - 2010-08-20 13:19:53
|
On 2010-08-20 07:38, M Rawash wrote: > On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 05:23 +0000, Olof Johansson wrote: > > On 2010-08-20 04:56, M Rawash wrote: > > > I can't say i'm 100% behind this, but it does seem like our best/last > > > option at this point, I'd also suggest that we have a separate license > > > file (let's say LICENSE-notion) which we can refer to instead of Tuomo's > > > made-up license, this way we will at least look like we're trying to > > > make it "free" (also, doesn't put us at odds with the LGPL; continuing > > > the (ab)use of Tuomo's license does!), but more on that later... > > > > It's Tuomo's code, he decides the rules. It's not an abuse, even > > though you might not like it. > > I'm not questioning Tuomo's right to license his work under whatever > license he pleases, but the fact remains that it's still an abuse of the > LGPL, see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL That is about GPL, not LGPL, I'm not sure, but I don't think they are as strict about the latter. (Don't take my word for it though.) > > What you propose however sounds like it > > could be, but on the other hand it was probably just bad wording... > > how is using a different license for _our_ code an abuse? doesn't that > contradict what you just said? That's the point you were being vague about... I understood your previous mail as "let's just refer to the LICENSE.notion file if anybody asks what license Notion has", and not "let's license *our* code under vanilla LGPL". Thanks for clearing that up. This would be a symbolic gesture, as most code is still Tuomo's. -- Olof Johansson irc: zibri on Freenode/OFTC jabber: ol...@et... |
|
From: M R. <mr...@gm...> - 2010-08-20 15:45:14
|
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 13:19 +0000, Olof Johansson wrote: > On 2010-08-20 07:38, M Rawash wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 05:23 +0000, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > On 2010-08-20 04:56, M Rawash wrote: > > > > I can't say i'm 100% behind this, but it does seem like our best/last > > > > option at this point, I'd also suggest that we have a separate license > > > > file (let's say LICENSE-notion) which we can refer to instead of Tuomo's > > > > made-up license, this way we will at least look like we're trying to > > > > make it "free" (also, doesn't put us at odds with the LGPL; continuing > > > > the (ab)use of Tuomo's license does!), but more on that later... > > > > > > It's Tuomo's code, he decides the rules. It's not an abuse, even > > > though you might not like it. > > > > I'm not questioning Tuomo's right to license his work under whatever > > license he pleases, but the fact remains that it's still an abuse of the > > LGPL, see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL > > That is about GPL, not LGPL, I'm not sure, but I don't think they are > as strict about the latter. (Don't take my word for it though.) LGPL is indeed less strict than the GPL, but only in practice (for example, you can convert LGPLed code to GPL, but not the other way around), LGPL is essentially GPL for libraries, they are both copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, and that's why they are not to be modified under any circumstances, unless you have a special permission from the copyright holder (the FSF). > > > > What you propose however sounds like it > > > could be, but on the other hand it was probably just bad wording... > > > > how is using a different license for _our_ code an abuse? doesn't that > > contradict what you just said? > > That's the point you were being vague about... I understood your > previous mail as "let's just refer to the LICENSE.notion file if > anybody asks what license Notion has", and not "let's license *our* > code under vanilla LGPL". maybe i should have been more clear, the point of 'reference' here was meant to be the copyright notice at the top of source files (that *we* modified or created), i'm not suggesting that we lie about our license. notion was going to be a multi-licensed work anyway, since we were planning to include various libraries and user-contributed mods to the core distribution. > Thanks for clearing that up. This would be a > symbolic gesture, as most code is still Tuomo's. indeed, that's why i said "we will at least _look like_ we're trying to make it free", i didn't suggest it will actually be free, everybody seems to have already made peace with that. regards, M Rawash |
|
From: Olof J. <ol...@et...> - 2010-08-20 17:23:34
|
On 2010-08-20 16:36, M Rawash wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 13:19 +0000, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > That is about GPL, not LGPL, I'm not sure, but I don't think they are
> > as strict about the latter. (Don't take my word for it though.)
>
> LGPL is indeed less strict than the GPL, but only in practice (for
> example, you can convert LGPLed code to GPL, but not the other way
> around), LGPL is essentially GPL for libraries, they are both
> copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, and that's why they are not
> to be modified under any circumstances, unless you have a special
> permission from the copyright holder (the FSF).
Uhm, yeah, that's not what I meant. I meant I think FSF is a bit less
strict about how you use LGPL than they are about how you use GPL. But
as I said, I'm not certain. But nevermind, I think we're somewhat on the
same page now.
--
Olof Johansson
irc: zibri on Freenode/OFTC
jabber: ol...@et...
|
|
From: Arnout E. <no...@bz...> - 2010-08-22 17:53:24
|
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 07:38:58AM +0200, M Rawash wrote: > On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 05:23 +0000, Olof Johansson wrote: > > On 2010-08-20 04:56, M Rawash wrote: > > > I'd suggest that we have a separate license file (let's say > > > LICENSE-notion) which we can refer to instead of Tuomo's made-up > > > license this way we will at least look like we're trying to > > > make it "free" (also, doesn't put us at odds with the LGPL; continuing > > > the (ab)use of Tuomo's license does!) > > > > It's Tuomo's code, he decides the rules. It's not an abuse, even > > though you might not like it. > > I'm not questioning Tuomo's right to license his work under whatever > license he pleases, but the fact remains that it's still an abuse of the > LGPL, see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL I don't think this is accurate. The section of the FAQ you quote applies to distributing *modified* versions of the LGPL text: for example, actually changing some of the terms and wordings of the license text. What Tuomov did, instead, is including the 'official' unmodified LGPL verbatim, and stating his additional terms separately. Afaics this is OK. > how is using a different license for _our_ code an abuse? doesn't that > contradict what you just said? It's not entirely clear to me whether it'd be legal to directly mix code that's under the LGPL and code that's under the 'LGPL-extended'. To be on the safe side, I think we should simply ask contributors to dual-license their contributions (so they're available under both the LGPL and the 'LGPL-extended'), and indicate this in the respective source files. Regards, Arnout |
|
From: M R. <mr...@gm...> - 2010-08-23 00:05:37
|
On Sun, 2010-08-22 at 19:53 +0200, Arnout Engelen wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 07:38:58AM +0200, M Rawash wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 05:23 +0000, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > On 2010-08-20 04:56, M Rawash wrote: > > > > I'd suggest that we have a separate license file (let's say > > > > LICENSE-notion) which we can refer to instead of Tuomo's made-up > > > > license this way we will at least look like we're trying to > > > > make it "free" (also, doesn't put us at odds with the LGPL; continuing > > > > the (ab)use of Tuomo's license does!) > > > > > > It's Tuomo's code, he decides the rules. It's not an abuse, even > > > though you might not like it. > > > > I'm not questioning Tuomo's right to license his work under whatever > > license he pleases, but the fact remains that it's still an abuse of the > > LGPL, see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL > > I don't think this is accurate. > > The section of the FAQ you quote applies to distributing *modified* versions > of the LGPL text: for example, actually changing some of the terms and > wordings of the license text. > > What Tuomov did, instead, is including the 'official' unmodified LGPL > verbatim, and stating his additional terms separately. Afaics this is OK. > Well, not exactly, Tuomo _did_ modify the LGPL (in addition to "stating his additional terms separately"), by both changing the meaning and implication of some words (i.e. "this license") and omitting entire sections (i.e. "Sections 3 and 13"). whether this actually counts as a modification (with legal implications) or Tuomo was simply exploiting a loophole in the way the (L)GPL is copyrighted, is debatable, and that's why i said it was an "abuse" of the LGPL, rather than outright illegal. On the other hand, Tuomo clearly states that this is a "modified" version of the LGPL in the first paragraph of the license itself: "[...]this software is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1 ("LGPL", reproduced below), extended and __modified__ with the following terms[...]" i rest my case :) > > how is using a different license for _our_ code an abuse? doesn't that > > contradict what you just said? > > It's not entirely clear to me whether it'd be legal to directly mix code that's > under the LGPL and code that's under the 'LGPL-extended'. >From my understanding of both the LGPL (including Tuomo's "extended" version) and the the FSF "gpl-faq", i'd say it's OK to mix differently licensed code (in this particular case) as long as the 'whole' work is licensed under the original license (i.e. Tuomo's "extended" license), read Section 2 of the LGPL. This, btw, also means, that we can *never* change the way notion will be licensed, even if 99% of the code was no longer Tuomo's, as it will always be considered a "derived work". > To be on the safe side, I think we should simply ask contributors to > dual-license their contributions (so they're available under both the LGPL and > the 'LGPL-extended'), and indicate this in the respective source files. Well, i would have been for this, if Tuomo hadn't included a copyright notice at the top of his extended license (which we cannot modify!), I guess this means that by referring to 'that' license we are unequivocally transferring all copyrights to "Tuomo Valkonen"! We should definitely have this talk now, rather than later, i hope more people can get in on this. regards, M Rawash |
|
From: Arnout E. <no...@bz...> - 2010-08-23 08:00:00
|
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:57:04AM +0200, M Rawash wrote: > On Sun, 2010-08-22 at 19:53 +0200, Arnout Engelen wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 07:38:58AM +0200, M Rawash wrote: > > > On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 05:23 +0000, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > > On 2010-08-20 04:56, M Rawash wrote: > > > > > I'd suggest that we have a separate license file (let's say > > > > > LICENSE-notion) which we can refer to instead of Tuomo's made-up > > > > > license this way we will at least look like we're trying to > > > > > make it "free" (also, doesn't put us at odds with the LGPL; continuing > > > > > the (ab)use of Tuomo's license does!) > > > > > > > > It's Tuomo's code, he decides the rules. It's not an abuse, even > > > > though you might not like it. > > > > > > I'm not questioning Tuomo's right to license his work under whatever > > > license he pleases, but the fact remains that it's still an abuse of the > > > LGPL, see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL > > > > I don't think this is accurate. > > > > The section of the FAQ you quote applies to distributing *modified* versions > > of the LGPL text: for example, actually changing some of the terms and > > wordings of the license text. > > > > What Tuomov did, instead, is including the 'official' unmodified LGPL > > verbatim, and stating his additional terms separately. Afaics this is OK. > > Well, not exactly, Tuomo _did_ modify the LGPL (in addition to "stating > his additional terms separately"), by both changing the meaning and > implication of some words (i.e. "this license") and omitting entire > sections (i.e. "Sections 3 and 13"). whether this actually counts as a > modification (with legal implications) or Tuomo was simply exploiting a > loophole in the way the (L)GPL is copyrighted, is debatable, and that's > why i said it was an "abuse" of the LGPL, rather than outright illegal. I don't really think this is a loophole or 'abuse'. > On the other hand, Tuomo clearly states that this is a "modified" > version of the LGPL in the first paragraph of the license itself: > > "[...]this software is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public > License, version 2.1 ("LGPL", reproduced below), extended and > __modified__ with the following terms[...]" > > i rest my case :) I still feel this is a different kind of 'modification' than is meant in the FAQ. The restrictions in the FAQ mostly seem to be intended to prevent mis-representing something that isn't LGPL as LGPL. We/Tuomov clearly don't do/does that. > > > how is using a different license for _our_ code an abuse? doesn't that > > > contradict what you just said? > > > > It's not entirely clear to me whether it'd be legal to directly mix code that's > > under the LGPL and code that's under the 'LGPL-extended'. > > From my understanding of both the LGPL (including Tuomo's "extended" > version) and the the FSF "gpl-faq", i'd say it's OK to mix differently > licensed code (in this particular case) as long as the 'whole' work is > licensed under the original license (i.e. Tuomo's "extended" license), > read Section 2 of the LGPL. I'm not so sure we wouldn't be violating contributors' rights by relicensing their LGPL'ed code under the 'extended' version. Though it *might* be legal, in any case it seems like good form to explicitly ask them if they're OK with it. > This, btw, also means, that we can *never* change the way notion will be > licensed, even if 99% of the code was no longer Tuomo's, as it will > always be considered a "derived work". Seems likely. > > To be on the safe side, I think we should simply ask contributors to > > dual-license their contributions (so they're available under both the LGPL and > > the 'LGPL-extended'), and indicate this in the respective source files. > > Well, i would have been for this, if Tuomo hadn't included a copyright > notice at the top of his extended license (which we cannot modify!), I > guess this means that by referring to 'that' license we are > unequivocally transferring all copyrights to "Tuomo Valkonen"! Copyright assignment isn't an issue here - every author keeps the copyright on his code, even if the code is (also) released under Tuomov's license. > We should definitely have this talk now, rather than later, i hope more > people can get in on this. It seems most of our problems are 'practical' questions (about what we can/must legally do) rather than 'fundamental' questions. Perhaps we should just ask the GNU legal team to clarify things? I'd be willing to prepare a mail explaining the situation. If I remember correctly they have a mailing list for this kind of thing. Regards, Arnout |
|
From: M R. <mr...@gm...> - 2010-08-23 13:35:44
|
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 09:59 +0200, Arnout Engelen wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:57:04AM +0200, M Rawash wrote: > > On Sun, 2010-08-22 at 19:53 +0200, Arnout Engelen wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 07:38:58AM +0200, M Rawash wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 05:23 +0000, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > > > On 2010-08-20 04:56, M Rawash wrote: > > > > > > I'd suggest that we have a separate license file (let's say > > > > > > LICENSE-notion) which we can refer to instead of Tuomo's made-up > > > > > > license this way we will at least look like we're trying to > > > > > > make it "free" (also, doesn't put us at odds with the LGPL; continuing > > > > > > the (ab)use of Tuomo's license does!) > > > > > > > > > > It's Tuomo's code, he decides the rules. It's not an abuse, even > > > > > though you might not like it. > > > > > > > > I'm not questioning Tuomo's right to license his work under whatever > > > > license he pleases, but the fact remains that it's still an abuse of the > > > > LGPL, see: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL > > > > > > I don't think this is accurate. > > > > > > The section of the FAQ you quote applies to distributing *modified* versions > > > of the LGPL text: for example, actually changing some of the terms and > > > wordings of the license text. > > > > > > What Tuomov did, instead, is including the 'official' unmodified LGPL > > > verbatim, and stating his additional terms separately. Afaics this is OK. > > > > Well, not exactly, Tuomo _did_ modify the LGPL (in addition to "stating > > his additional terms separately"), by both changing the meaning and > > implication of some words (i.e. "this license") and omitting entire > > sections (i.e. "Sections 3 and 13"). whether this actually counts as a > > modification (with legal implications) or Tuomo was simply exploiting a > > loophole in the way the (L)GPL is copyrighted, is debatable, and that's > > why i said it was an "abuse" of the LGPL, rather than outright illegal. > > I don't really think this is a loophole or 'abuse'. um, ok? > > On the other hand, Tuomo clearly states that this is a "modified" > > version of the LGPL in the first paragraph of the license itself: > > > > "[...]this software is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public > > License, version 2.1 ("LGPL", reproduced below), extended and > > __modified__ with the following terms[...]" > > > > i rest my case :) > > I still feel this is a different kind of 'modification' than is meant in the > FAQ. The restrictions in the FAQ mostly seem to be intended to prevent > mis-representing something that isn't LGPL as LGPL.We/Tuomov clearly don't > do/does that. I'm not sure where you got that they are merely talking about the (L)GPL text here, but i hope you can explain away this answer too: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary > > > > how is using a different license for _our_ code an abuse? doesn't that > > > > contradict what you just said? > > > > > > It's not entirely clear to me whether it'd be legal to directly mix code that's > > > under the LGPL and code that's under the 'LGPL-extended'. > > > > From my understanding of both the LGPL (including Tuomo's "extended" > > version) and the the FSF "gpl-faq", i'd say it's OK to mix differently > > licensed code (in this particular case) as long as the 'whole' work is > > licensed under the original license (i.e. Tuomo's "extended" license), > > read Section 2 of the LGPL. > > I'm not so sure we wouldn't be violating contributors' rights by relicensing > their LGPL'ed code under the 'extended' version. we're not really 'relicensing' anything, all copyright notices and individual license files will remain intact (as per Section 1 of the LGPL). The 'whole' (in this particular case) will be considered a "work that uses the Library" (as per Section 5 of the LGPL), thus only subject to Section 6 of the LGPL where applicable. > Though it *might* be legal, > in any case it seems like good form to explicitly ask them if they're OK with > it. +1 > > This, btw, also means, that we can *never* change the way notion will be > > licensed, even if 99% of the code was no longer Tuomo's, as it will > > always be considered a "derived work". > > Seems likely. > > > > To be on the safe side, I think we should simply ask contributors to > > > dual-license their contributions (so they're available under both the LGPL and > > > the 'LGPL-extended'), and indicate this in the respective source files. > > > > Well, i would have been for this, if Tuomo hadn't included a copyright > > notice at the top of his extended license (which we cannot modify!), I > > guess this means that by referring to 'that' license we are > > unequivocally transferring all copyrights to "Tuomo Valkonen"! > > Copyright assignment isn't an issue here - every author keeps the copyright on > his code, even if the code is (also) released under Tuomov's license. yah, i just realised that it's not even part of 'the license' (which means we can modify or even remove it), disregard that... > > We should definitely have this talk now, rather than later, i hope more > > people can get in on this. > > It seems most of our problems are 'practical' questions (about what we can/must > legally do) rather than 'fundamental' questions. Perhaps we should just ask the > GNU legal team to clarify things? I'd be willing to prepare a mail explaining > the situation. If I remember correctly they have a mailing list for this kind > of thing. that would be great, thank you. regards, M Rawash |
|
From: Arnout E. <no...@bz...> - 2010-08-23 16:00:52
|
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 02:27:08PM +0200, M Rawash wrote: > i hope you can explain away this answer too: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary Sure: this FAQ item deals with adding additional restrictions, while at the same time (!) claiming you're releasing the software under the GPL. We are not trying to have the ion code licensed under the LGPL and at the same time impose additional restrictions. We are trying to have the ion code under the 'LGPL-extended', without claiming it is still LGPL code. > > I'm not so sure we wouldn't be violating contributors' rights by relicensing > > their LGPL'ed code under the 'extended' version. > > we're not really 'relicensing' anything, all copyright notices and > individual license files will remain intact (as per Section 1 of the > LGPL). The 'whole' (in this particular case) will be considered a "work > that uses the Library" (as per Section 5 of the LGPL), thus only subject > to Section 6 of the LGPL where applicable. > > > Though it *might* be legal, > > in any case it seems like good form to explicitly ask them if they're OK with > > it. > > +1 Let's do it this way > > > We should definitely have this talk now, rather than later, i hope more > > > people can get in on this. > > > > It seems most of our problems are 'practical' questions (about what we can/must > > legally do) rather than 'fundamental' questions. Perhaps we should just ask the > > GNU legal team to clarify things? I'd be willing to prepare a mail explaining > > the situation. If I remember correctly they have a mailing list for this kind > > of thing. > > that would be great, thank you. OK, willdo. Kind regards, Arnout |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X