On Jan 5, 2008 9:28 AM, Frank Lanitz linux@partysoke.de wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:44:47 -0600 "Jeff Pohlmeyer" yetanothergeek@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 4, 2008 8:23 AM, Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
But I suggest any further discussion on this topic should be done in a new thread.
I don't know if it really merits its own thread, but here goes...
The easiest thing would be to remove this phrase but are we allowed to?
I would say you can, unless somebody who contributed to geany in the past objects to it. If they do, you can either add the phrase back in again, or simply remove or re-implement the code they contributed.
I agree. But I'm still not sure, if it is really necessary, since GPLv2 is a part of GPLv2 or later.
But I see another problem: If Geany is GPLv2 only there might will be problems with Plugins written under conditions of GPLv3, since v2 is not completly compatible to v3.
Besides any lethal considerations which I don't know, in my opinion the choice of the licence of plugins is independent from Geany's licence as long as it is compatible with GPLv2.
I agree, as long as the plugin is distributed separately. But if a plugin's source is distributed along with Geany, then it would add the extra burden of explaining any small nuances between the way the plugin interprets the GPL (v2 only) and the way Geany currently sees it (v2 or later)
I suppose that's still not a problem, just a possible source of confusion.
That's true.
I suppose to keep GPLv2 or any later so the distributor can decide, which licence he like to choice. Also to setup a paypal-account to collect money to ask a lawyer, what's the best :D
This subject has, of course, been discussed at length at the fsf website: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/education
Regarding the "or later" clause, the GPL faq has this to say about it: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#VersionThreeOrLater
And regarding plug-ins: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
---John
On Jan 5, 2008 1:59 PM, John Gabriele jmg3000@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding the "or later" clause, the GPL faq has this to say about it: ... And regarding plug-ins: ...
Thanks for the links - that is some interesting reading, but it seems like the more I read about the GPL, the less I understand it :-)
The "VersionThreeOrLater" link seems to explain why the clause is an advantage to end users, but I fail to see how that provides any protection to developers who might not agree with the terms in a future version of the license.
The "GPLAndPlugins" link says:
"This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed."
huh????
They can be *released* under any GPL-compatible license, but the GPL must be followed when they are *distributed* ??? What the heck does that mean?
- Jeff
Hi
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 03:18:02PM -0600, Jeff Pohlmeyer wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008 1:59 PM, John Gabriele jmg3000@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding the "or later" clause, the GPL faq has this to say about it: ... And regarding plug-ins: ...
Thanks for the links - that is some interesting reading, but it seems like the more I read about the GPL, the less I understand it :-)
The "VersionThreeOrLater" link seems to explain why the clause is an advantage to end users, but I fail to see how that provides any protection to developers who might not agree with the terms in a future version of the license.
I belive something said here: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2OrLaterPatentLicense
If you don't have to give up you patents, you don't have to pay 100000$ to any user either, even if such statement will appear in gpl >3.
Best regards, Yura Siamashka
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 00:41:28 +0200 Yura Siamashka yurand2@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 03:18:02PM -0600, Jeff Pohlmeyer wrote:
The "VersionThreeOrLater" link seems to explain why the clause is an advantage to end users, but I fail to see how that provides any protection to developers who might not agree with the terms in a future version of the license.
I belive something said here: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2OrLaterPatentLicense
If you don't have to give up you patents, you don't have to pay 100000 $ to any user either, even if such statement will appear in gpl >3.
Thanks, that link clarifies things in my mind at least ;-) Any developer is only bound to the license that exists at the time the code was released. The 'or later' bit is for allowing distribution under a later version of the license.
To quote the link:
"When you convey GPLed software, you must follow the terms and conditions of one particular version of the license. When you do so, that version defines the obligations you have. If users may also elect to use later versions of the GPL, that's merely an additional permission they have—it does not require you to fulfill the terms of the later version of the GPL as well."
Another issue is whether you want the FSF to be able to control how your code is distributed, but I don't think this is really a problem. Even if the FSF was somehow taken over by some anti-GPL interest, I think in a court of law a jury would find it strange that a foundation that has 'Free Software' in the title would try to limit user's freedoms. Probably a worst case scenario is that a future version could in theory degrade to BSD-like terms. That's probably not likely, and even if it happened it wouldn't be too bad, IMO. IANAL.
Regards, Nick
Hi
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 03:18:02PM -0600, Jeff Pohlmeyer wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008 1:59 PM, John Gabriele jmg3000@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding the "or later" clause, the GPL faq has this to say about it: ... And regarding plug-ins: ...
Thanks for the links - that is some interesting reading, but it seems like the more I read about the GPL, the less I understand it :-)
The "VersionThreeOrLater" link seems to explain why the clause is an advantage to end users, but I fail to see how that provides any protection to developers who might not agree with the terms in a future version of the license.
I belive something said here: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2OrLaterPatentLicense
If you don't have to give up you patents, you don't have to pay 100000$ to any user either, even if such statement will appear in gpl >3.
Best regards, Yura Siamashka
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 15:18:02 -0600 "Jeff Pohlmeyer" yetanothergeek@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 5, 2008 1:59 PM, John Gabriele jmg3000@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding the "or later" clause, the GPL faq has this to say about it: ... And regarding plug-ins: ...
Thanks for the links - that is some interesting reading, but it seems like the more I read about the GPL, the less I understand it :-)
Now that you mention that, the 2-clause BSD license is a bit easier to understand :)
The "VersionThreeOrLater" link seems to explain why the clause is an advantage to end users, but I fail to see how that provides any protection to developers who might not agree with the terms in a future version of the license.
There is none. This is meant to switch GPL'd software to new versions of the licence automatically, not to protect developers, I think.
The "GPLAndPlugins" link says:
"This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed."
huh????
They can be *released* under any GPL-compatible license, but the GPL must be followed when they are *distributed* ??? What the heck does that mean?
I suppose the sentence should be "the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed with the GPL application they are designed to plug into". That way, the plugin can be used "elsewhere" using any licence but is licensed under the GPL whenever distributed with the GPL-distributed application. I also think that those plugins could be dual licensed (GPL + one incompatible license), provided (rather obviously) the "other" license is never used with a GPL main application.
François
On Jan 5, 2008 3:18 PM, Jeff Pohlmeyer yetanothergeek@gmail.com wrote:
"This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed."
huh????
They can be *released* under any GPL-compatible license, but the GPL must be followed when they are *distributed* ??? What the heck does that mean?
Sorry if my previous post sounded a little harsh, I wasn't screaming at anyone here, just expressing frustration at my own inability to understand this stuff.
After cooling down and thinking about it for a while, I think maybe what they are trying to say is that the source code for the plugin must be publicly available.
For instance, the MIT license is compatible with the GPL, but there is nothing in the MIT that requires the author to release the source code.
But in order to *release* a plugin under the MIT license, and *distribute* it in line with the GPL, the source must be released as well.
Does that make sense?
- Jeff