Mailing List Archive

Ah it's not the actual ebuild's fault it's the site's fault as per
according to https://bugs.gentoo.org/182943 ;) hopefully someone will
get on that.

-Kalidarn


On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 21:35 +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> David kirjoitti:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Was suggested I make a post on the mailing list in addition to lodging
> > bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/184522
> >
>
> Don't know why you were suggested it but any way yes everyone should be
> on the lookout for license changes.
>
> Regards,
> Petteri
>
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

What about moving Gentoo stuff to `GPLv3 or later'?

Marijn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGkMS4p/VmCx0OL2wRAmkvAKDJCYN0B/i7Pxyg1rDPCVeaSQxZAwCfQeb0
994588RE/uxHALCw4JlcZRM=
=UEr5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Sunday, 08. July 2007 13:04:24 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> What about moving Gentoo stuff to `GPLv3 or later'?

I'm strongly opposed to the "or later" part for the simple reason that
this implicates we will agree with stuff we don't even know yet.

Therefore, I'm glad our current copyright notice doesn't do this either:

"Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2"

I haven't studied GPL-3 fully yet so I haven't formed an opinion about
moving to it alone.

Best regards, Wulf

On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 13:50 +0200, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> On Sunday, 08. July 2007 13:04:24 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> > What about moving Gentoo stuff to `GPLv3 or later'?
>
> I'm strongly opposed to the "or later" part for the simple reason that
> this implicates we will agree with stuff we don't even know yet.

Hear hear. That's why we removed the "or later" rubbish from our
licenses about 4 years ago.


> I haven't studied GPL-3 fully yet so I haven't formed an opinion about
> moving to it alone.


I'm not certain what it buys us to move to v3, to be honest. Unless
there are compelling reasons to do so, I don't think it's worth the
effort to change it.

Seemant

Le Sun, 08 Jul 2007 09:06:09 -0400,
Seemant Kulleen <seemant@gentoo.org> a écrit :

> On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 13:50 +0200, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> > On Sunday, 08. July 2007 13:04:24 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> > > What about moving Gentoo stuff to `GPLv3 or later'?
> >
> > I'm strongly opposed to the "or later" part for the simple reason that
> > this implicates we will agree with stuff we don't even know yet.
>
> Hear hear. That's why we removed the "or later" rubbish from our
> licenses about 4 years ago.
>
>
> > I haven't studied GPL-3 fully yet so I haven't formed an opinion about
> > moving to it alone.
>
>
> I'm not certain what it buys us to move to v3, to be honest. Unless
> there are compelling reasons to do so, I don't think it's worth the
> effort to change it.
>
> Seemant
>

The problem is when you want to move. If the original statement is "GPL-2 or
later", it is just to move to whatever gpl>2 you want to move.

With the original statement "GPL-2" alone, you have to take contact and get an
authorisation to move from each single programmer that contributed code into
the project.

I personally think at gpl-3 is better as gpl-2 because GPLv3 will block
tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called “appliances”) contain
GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down if
it detects modified software. The usual motive for tivoization is that the
software has features the manufacturer thinks lots of people won't like. The
manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free
software provides, but they don't let you do likewise. see
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html

If you want to migrate to GPL-3, the most important question to solve will be:
is it possible to get an agreement to do that migration from every single
programmer involved in gentoo?

My 2 c. contrib.

Dominique

--
N.B.: Tous les emails que je reçois sont filtrés par spamassassin avant de me
parvenir.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:46:57 +0200
Dominique Michel <dominique.michel@citycable.ch> wrote:
> With the original statement "GPL-2" alone, you have to take contact
> and get an authorisation to move from each single programmer that
> contributed code into the project.

No, you have to get permission of the copyright holders. Which, in this
case, is the Foundation.

--
Ciaran McCreesh

On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 16:46 +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:

> I personally think at gpl-3 is better as gpl-2 because GPLv3 will block
> tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called “appliances”) contain
> GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down if
> it detects modified software. The usual motive for tivoization is that the
> software has features the manufacturer thinks lots of people won't like. The
> manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free
> software provides, but they don't let you do likewise. see
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html
>
> If you want to migrate to GPL-3, the most important question to solve will be:
> is it possible to get an agreement to do that migration from every single
> programmer involved in gentoo?

Like Ciaran said, the foundation holds the copyright, so it can
re-license if it needs/wants to. The tivoization clause is certainly
one of those subjects that can rapidly spiral downwards on this list,
because it is largely a religious issue. In Tivo's case, they made the
software freely available, but locked down their hardware. So, software
wise, they did not affect freedom; hardware wise, it's their design and
specs, they're under no obligations. Either way, I'm not sure how
Gentoo is affected by the tivoization clause. If you can really show
some way that GPL3 provides a compelling case to move to it, then we can
start talking about that.

Thanks,

Seemant

On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 03:50:56PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 16:46:57 +0200
> Dominique Michel <dominique.michel@citycable.ch> wrote:
> > With the original statement "GPL-2" alone, you have to take contact
> > and get an authorisation to move from each single programmer that
> > contributed code into the project.
>
> No, you have to get permission of the copyright holders. Which, in this
> case, is the Foundation.

Could you back that up, please? I was looking for something to confirm or
deny this myself, but didn't find anything.

I did, however, find
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/blog/articles/20050506-foundation/>

Quoting:
"Note that the Foundation would never change the license used for the
code or documentation, if that could be set in stone that would be
even better."

Is this still relevant?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> If you can really show some way that GPL3 provides a compelling case
> to move to it, then we can start talking about that.
>

I wasn't aware that gentoo practiced copyright assignment. You might
want to make the disclaimers clear - if somebody submits a patch on
bugzilla and doesn't expressly assign copyright they would legally
retain it unless it were a clear condition of using the site. Also, it
would help avoid people submitting patches that aren't
GPL-2-only-compatible from other projects. But then again, I'm not a
lawyer... :)

I guess one reason to move would be that it is the goal of the FSF for
this to become the "default" GPL. So, if there was a compelling case
for adopting the GPL at all (one presumes there was since we're GPL
currently), then there is a case for migrating to GPL v3 by that virtue
alone. Does that mean that we HAVE to? Certainly not.

I'd ask the question why we're GPL at all? If the reason is because we
generally agree with the principles of free software and copyleft, then
the GPL v3 is only an improvement over the GPL. If we don't really like
copyleft as an organization then it would make more sense to just adopt
BSD, rather than stick with a copyleft license that just has a few
loopholes in it.

In terms of pros/cons with GPLv2 you'd have compatibility with GPL3 and
GPL2+ licenses, as well as the the Affero GPL. There is of course the
closing of the tivoization loophole, and that can be considered a pro or
a con depending on your personal beliefs. However, if you really are
pro-tivoization, then why use the GPL at all?

Oh, there exists another option - we could also relicense as GPL2 or 3 -
that gets rid of the "what if it changes to something bad" issue while
allowing others to adopt the code under either license.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGkSnKG4/rWKZmVWkRApvIAJ98Oj9+pNvRnHXYVeNAElNQ8dUeYwCfeQNN
s0QRFW/n1ZNhZm1RabgNaQk=
=w0HP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sunday, 08. July 2007 20:15:31 Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > No, you have to get permission of the copyright holders. Which, in
> > this case, is the Foundation.
> Could you back that up, please? I was looking for something to confirm
> or deny this myself, but didn't find anything.

It's in the copyright notice of every single ebuild:

"# Copyright 1999-2007 Gentoo Foundation"

Thus, the copyright owner/holder is the Gentoo Foundation. The Foundation
can therefore decide to change the licence.

> "Note that the Foundation would never change the license used for the
> code or documentation, if that could be set in stone that would be
> even better."
> Is this still relevant?

Hopefully not as it is, stated as simple as that, not very wise.

It's probably *meant* to say that the Foundation will never switch to a
closed-source model but it shouldn't rule out switching to GPL-3 should
that turn out to be desirable.

Best regards, Wulf

On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 08:52:30PM +0200, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> On Sunday, 08. July 2007 20:15:31 Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > > No, you have to get permission of the copyright holders. Which, in
> > > this case, is the Foundation.
> > Could you back that up, please? I was looking for something to confirm
> > or deny this myself, but didn't find anything.
>
> It's in the copyright notice of every single ebuild:
>
> "# Copyright 1999-2007 Gentoo Foundation"
>
> Thus, the copyright owner/holder is the Gentoo Foundation.

If I write an ebuild today, why does it not say "Copyright 2007"? It's
because the copyright notice applies to skel.ebuild and/or the tree as a
whole. Whether it also applies to the individual contributions is what
I'm curious about.

> The Foundation
> can therefore decide to change the licence.

If the Foundation is the copyright holder, then agreed, it can.

> > "Note that the Foundation would never change the license used for the
> > code or documentation, if that could be set in stone that would be
> > even better."
> > Is this still relevant?
>
> Hopefully not as it is, stated as simple as that, not very wise.
>
> It's probably *meant* to say that the Foundation will never switch to a
> closed-source model but it shouldn't rule out switching to GPL-3 should
> that turn out to be desirable.

If you can give a clear way to separate licenses which should be
allowable, from those which should not, then please share. Would it mean
that the Foundation might change to the CDDL, for example? If not, why
not?
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Sunday, 08. July 2007 21:12:38 Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > "# Copyright 1999-2007 Gentoo Foundation"
> > Thus, the copyright owner/holder is the Gentoo Foundation.
> If I write an ebuild today, why does it not say "Copyright 2007"?

Probably because different legal systems require different formats of the
copyright notice. Over here, "copyright 2007" would be fully sufficient.

> It's because the copyright notice applies to skel.ebuild and/or the
> tree as a whole. Whether it also applies to the individual
> contributions is what I'm curious about.

TTBOMK, it applies to each and every individual ebuild. The tree itself
doesn't seem to have a separate copyright notice and I see no need for it
either.

As for contributions without a clear copyright notice, it would, IMHO, be
best to make sure (e. g. by adding some legal blah to Bugzilla) they're
original works to be licenced under (currently) the GPL-2 or derived from
a product with a compatible licence by the contributor.

> If you can give a clear way to separate licenses which should be
> allowable, from those which should not, then please share.

Sorry, that's both beyond my legal knowledge and my sphere of interest. :)

I think we all agree that ebuilds should be released under an open source
licence. That's good enough for me. :-)

Best regards, Wulf

On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 09:42:49PM +0200, Wulf C. Krueger wrote:
> On Sunday, 08. July 2007 21:12:38 Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > > "# Copyright 1999-2007 Gentoo Foundation"
> > > Thus, the copyright owner/holder is the Gentoo Foundation.
> > If I write an ebuild today, why does it not say "Copyright 2007"?
>
> Probably because different legal systems require different formats of the
> copyright notice. Over here, "copyright 2007" would be fully sufficient.

If the copyright notice doesn't apply at least in part to skel.ebuild
and/or the whole tree, it's not possible for "Copyright 1999-2007" to be
required anywhere.

> > It's because the copyright notice applies to skel.ebuild and/or the
> > tree as a whole. Whether it also applies to the individual
> > contributions is what I'm curious about.
>
> TTBOMK, it applies to each and every individual ebuild. The tree itself
> doesn't seem to have a separate copyright notice and I see no need for it
> either.

As I recall from previous discussions, the tree as a whole is
copyrighted, essentially because it is not clear whether the majority of
ebuilds are copyrightable by themselves.

> As for contributions without a clear copyright notice, it would, IMHO, be
> best to make sure (e. g. by adding some legal blah to Bugzilla) they're
> original works to be licenced under (currently) the GPL-2 or derived from
> a product with a compatible licence by the contributor.

If the Foundation needs the right to relicense code, this should also be
made clear (e.g. in the "legal blah" that would be added to Bugzilla).

> > If you can give a clear way to separate licenses which should be
> > allowable, from those which should not, then please share.
>
> Sorry, that's both beyond my legal knowledge and my sphere of interest. :)
>
> I think we all agree that ebuilds should be released under an open source
> licence. That's good enough for me. :-)

I can agree with that. What I care about is the right to decide on the
license for code that is entirely written by myself. I don't really care
how the tree is licensed.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Richard Freeman <rich@thefreemanclan.net> posted
469129CF.9040301@thefreemanclan.net, excerpted below, on Sun, 08 Jul 2007
14:15:43 -0400:

> Seemant Kulleen wrote:
>> If you can really show some way that GPL3 provides a compelling case to
>> move to it, then we can start talking about that.
>>
>>
> I wasn't aware that gentoo practiced copyright assignment. You might
> want to make the disclaimers clear - if somebody submits a patch on
> bugzilla and doesn't expressly assign copyright they would legally
> retain it unless it were a clear condition of using the site. Also, it
> would help avoid people submitting patches that aren't
> GPL-2-only-compatible from other projects. But then again, I'm not a
> lawyer... :)

Choosing here to jump in, tho this could go elsewhere in the thread.
I've done a bit of research on this for my own (scripted) code.

Trivial isn't copyrightable. It has to express creativity and etc.
There's a bit of a gray line as to what's "trivial" vs what's not, but
the position the FSF takes is that if it's just a few lines, it's
"trivial". I've seen numbers thrown around as low as three lines or as
high as 20, on the "arguing on the low side" end (so some saying as low
as 20 may consider the norm higher but admit there might be a /few/ cases
for as low as 20 lines).

More specifically, in their licensing recommendations, the FSF suggests
that it's /not/ appropriate to use the GPL/LGPL on works short enough
that incorporating the whole of the license would make the license the
bulk of the work in question. They strongly recommend that works
incorporate the whole license in word, not just by reference as to a URL
or the like, since those change over time. (This is in contrast to the
CC licenses, which encourage incorporation by URL reference, and pledge
to keep a more or less stable URL for each version.) The FSF says on
such short works, it's better to release "in the public domain" or under
some other less restrictive license.

Thus the questions of whether many/most individual ebuilds /could/ be
copyrighted or if so whether it's worth doing so. Certainly, it's the
tree that contains the license, not the individual ebuilds, etc, which
give the copyright statement but little more. Gentoo policy would seem
to be, then, that it's the work of the tree as a whole that's
copyrighted. Individual ebuilds may or may not be, and it's /implied/
(which isn't necessarily legally binding) that if they are, there'd be
little attempt at enforcement unless a significant portion of the tree
was copied/modified.

Of course, there's also the question of whether an individual ebuild is
all that useful in practice, without the rest of the supporting tree
structure (not necessarily the individual applications including those
developed by Gentoo such as portage, the tree). Certainly without the
eclasses, many ebuilds would be in practice almost worthless.

So the copyright is on the tree. Note that actual Gentoo apps such as
portage, catalyst, etc, are copyrighted individually. The Gentoo policy
/does/ state that apps are GPL2ed AFAIK, as is the tree. Then there's
documentation, which is not GPLed but generally CC-AT-SA (Attribution
Share-alike).

> I guess one reason to move would be that it is the goal of the FSF for
> this to become the "default" GPL. So, if there was a compelling case
> for adopting the GPL at all (one presumes there was since we're GPL
> currently), then there is a case for migrating to GPL v3 by that virtue
> alone. Does that mean that we HAVE to? Certainly not.
>
> I'd ask the question why we're GPL at all? If the reason is because we
> generally agree with the principles of free software and copyleft, then
> the GPL v3 is only an improvement over the GPL. If we don't really like
> copyleft as an organization then it would make more sense to just adopt
> BSD, rather than stick with a copyleft license that just has a few
> loopholes in it.

That's a long and predictably controversial debate. See all the
electrons spilled on it debating the Linux kernel, for instance. While I
personally support the FSF and GPL3, there's a definitely valid position
held by some that the code return requirements of GPL2 are sufficient,
that Tivoization should be specifically allowed, because the code is
returned, even if it doesn't work on their specific product without the
signing keys and etc.

Apart from the more specifically enumerated patent protections and wider
compatibility of GPL3, which might be worthy shooting for, I don't think
the anti-tivoization clauses are much that Gentoo needs to worry about
for the tree (possibly for some of the apps) anyway. Of course, there's
also the point that what's in the tree is scripted and therefore
inherently in source form, and that changing it sufficiently to put it in
compiled language form would be a rewrite and of questionable "derived"
status. Certainly, the work to put it in compiled form would be
significant. It's also not likely as the scripted form is a major part
of the point. If it were compiled and therefore more opaque, it'd lose
the distinctiveness that makes it Gentoo and is coming close to being any
other (binary) distribution.

There's also the hassle of changing. Many contributors could argue that
they contributed under the statement that it'd be GPL2, period. How that
might turn out is anyone's guess, but I just don't see that there's any
benefit in moving the tree to GPLv3, with the possible exception of
patent protections and I don't believe they are likely to be worth the
switch on their own. Thus, for the tree as a copyrightable work, I just
don't see it being worth even attempting to change.

The case could however be made for portage, catalyst, etc, all the Gentoo
apps. They have a narrower contributor base so the hassle of switching
should be less. Their usage is such that the GPL3 may arguably be of
benefit over the GPL2. However, I know little of the feelings of the
major contributors. If they don't feel it worth switching, or are
definitely against it, it's unlikely to happen. If they favor switching,
with the narrower contribution base, it might indeed be possible, and the
benefits could indeed arguably outweigh the cost.

> In terms of pros/cons with GPLv2 you'd have compatibility with GPL3 and
> GPL2+ licenses, as well as the the Affero GPL. There is of course the
> closing of the tivoization loophole, and that can be considered a pro or
> a con depending on your personal beliefs. However, if you really are
> pro-tivoization, then why use the GPL at all?
>
> Oh, there exists another option - we could also relicense as GPL2 or 3 -
> that gets rid of the "what if it changes to something bad" issue while
> allowing others to adopt the code under either license.

The 2/3 option will have lower cost than 3 only, certainly, as those who
favor GPLv2 are less likely to be strongly opposed to the dual license
2/3. However, again, I don't see it being even worth serious
consideration (beyond the current thread level) for the tree. Possibly
for one or more of the apps, but not the tree in general.

Again, I'm generally pro-GPLv3 switch, but an optimistic realist as
well. If a generally pro-GPLv3 guy doesn't see it as worth switching the
tree, I don't believe it's going to happen, period, because there are
certainly those that are more adamantly GPLv2 only than I am GPLv3 only,
and they have the present situation on their side.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> posted f6sv6g$a8$1@sea.gmane.org,
excerpted below, on Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:23 +0100:

> Duncan wrote:
>> Thus the questions of whether many/most individual ebuilds /could/ be
>> copyrighted or if so whether it's worth doing so. [] Gentoo policy
>> would seem to be, then, that it's the work of the tree as a whole
>> that's copyrighted. Individual ebuilds may or may not be, and it's
>> /implied/ (which isn't necessarily legally binding) that if they are,
>> there'd be little attempt at enforcement unless a significant portion
>> of the tree was copied/modified.
>>
>> Of course, there's also the question of whether an individual ebuild is
>> all that useful in practice, without the rest of the supporting tree
>> structure [eclasses, etc].
>>
> Hmm I agree that the ebuilds are useless without the eclasses, but imo
> every ebuild is still copyrighted. (Ie `Individual ebuilds may or may
> not be' seems untrue to me.) The practical consequences you outline seem
> accurate, in that someone copying a single ebuild is unlikely to be
> sued. And OFC this would only be an issue where the derived work is NOT
> released under the GPL.

Some ebuilds, for example the old monolithic xfree86/xorg ebuilds, were
certainly complicated enough to be "non-trivial". No argument there.
BTW, talking about eclasses, the default functions in (IIRC) ebuild.sh
should be included as well. The most trivial of the ebuilds are just
that in part /because/ of those default functions, so again, we're
looking at a complete work, altho here, it's complicated by the separate
components, keeping in mind that there are implementations other than
portage, which of course have to implement their own "compatible" default
functions.

Practically speaking, however, regardless if the individual ebuilds can
be copyrighted or not, it all comes down to where the line is drawn at
which Gentoo (or our legal representatives) chooses to sue. I just don't
see it being an issue at the one or even a handful of ebuilds level, even
if it were MS itself making use of them, except /perhaps/ as one more
warhead in the patent MAD scenario.

>> [anti-tivoization clauses]

> Well I guess the concern would be if a Gentoo-based system were running
> on such hardware.

The likelihood of that is extremely remote. portage and the tree's
primary focus is on sources distributed to the end user. For those
focused primarily on binaries, there are better solutions, so it's not a
practical worry at that level. If they are simply building the system
image using Gentoo, there's no GPL either version obligation to
distribute the tools as long as the system can be built without them, as
it can (untar/configure/make/make-install), any more than there's an
obligation to distribute the CD imaging software used to create a Linux
LiveCD, just because it has Linux on it.

> GPL3 would mean that was impractical, which aiui is
> the point of the clause- to stop Free software being used in a manner
> that restricts users' rights.

The GPL doesn't restrict use (as in end-user use, not derived use), it
grants certain rights of distribution and modification otherwise reserved
due to copyright, on the condition certain rules are followed regarding
that modification and distribution.

Even under GPLv3, the TIVOs and media companies of the world are
perfectly free to implement (say) DRM on the software. There's just
certain conditions placed on distribution of said product then, keys
necessary to modify the software (as run on the distributed hardware if
any) and therefore remove that DRM must be provided (in the consumer but
not always the biz customer case), and in any case, GPLv3 software is
defined as NOT an anti-circumvention device, preventing that clause of
the DMCA and similar laws from applying.

>> There's also the hassle of changing. Many contributors could argue
>> that they contributed under the statement that it'd be GPL2, period.
>>
> AIUI it doesn't really matter how past contributors feel
> (legally-speaking) in that they explicitly gave copyright to Gentoo.

Copyright to Gentoo is one thing, but if it was made while there was a
public pledge that it would be GPLv2, as someone up-thread stated has
been the case (I tried to find the pledge on the site just now, but the
closest I can find is the social contract, it specifies the "or later"
clause, but also specifies at "our" discretion, with the "our" referring
to the contributor to Gentoo), that pledge could be held to be legally
binding. If someone argues that they only made the assignment based on
said pledge (which specifies that the discretion on the "or later" clause
belongs to the committer to Gentoo), then while Gentoo holds the
copyright, for them to change the license without the permission of the
original contributor could be held to be fraud. The redress for such
fraud would likely include reversion of the copyright to the previous
holder, since the conditions under which it was transferred were breached.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:23 +0100
Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:

> IMO though, Gentoo is effectively already under GPL3 in that, apart
> from portage and python, all the core software is GNU. It'd be pretty
> difficult for instance, to run any ebuild without BASH.

It's not a matter of opinion whether Gentoo (sys-apps/portage, the
ebuilds and so on) are GPL -2 or -3. Running your own copyrighted works
on Gentoo does not "effectively" mean that your works are suddenly
held to the same license as Gentoo. There's a complicated discussion
about derived works that I won't go into here, but Gentoo, the Linux
distribution, is distributed under many licenses, whereas Gentoo the
package management system / Portage tree is distributed under one
license -- GPL-2. Whether all the system utils or the kernel are GPL-3
is of no consequence to the package manager or the Portage tree.

Lastly, appreciating that (most) ebuilds require bash to be interpreted
does *not* make them derivative works of bash in accepted readings of
international copyright law. Therefore, the license of bash be(com)ing
GPL-3 does not preclude ebuilds being (and remaining) GPL-2.


Kind regards,
JeR
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 04:46:57PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
>
> I personally think at gpl-3 is better as gpl-2 because GPLv3 will block
> tivoization.

Only if the kernel is changed to v3, which it will not be.

So this crusade by the FSF to stop what they explicitly said was a legal
use of v2, never succeeded, so please stop trying to worry about it.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Jeroen Roovers kirjoitti:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:23 +0100
> Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> IMO though, Gentoo is effectively already under GPL3 in that, apart
>> from portage and python, all the core software is GNU. It'd be pretty
>> difficult for instance, to run any ebuild without BASH.
>
> It's not a matter of opinion whether Gentoo (sys-apps/portage, the
> ebuilds and so on) are GPL -2 or -3.

Ebuilds heavily call into functions defined in Portage so someone could
argue that if Portage goes to GPL-3 so should the ebuilds. Of course
with EAPI things might not be this way and I am not a lawyer either.

Regards,
Petteri

Le Mon, 9 Jul 2007 09:39:14 -0700,
Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> a écrit :

> On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 04:46:57PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
> >
> > I personally think at gpl-3 is better as gpl-2 because GPLv3 will block
> > tivoization.
>
> Only if the kernel is changed to v3, which it will not be.
>
> So this crusade by the FSF to stop what they explicitly said was a legal
> use of v2, never succeeded, so please stop trying to worry about it.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

I don't want to force anyone to use v3, I was just saying at v3 is better as v2
from my point of vue. Maybe I am wrong, but just to say at I am wrong is not
enough.

Can you explain more. If the kernel can be tivoized by someone, who will use
this kernel? How can this affect the software xyz that have a v3 licence?

Dominique
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

> Thus the questions of whether many/most individual ebuilds /could/ be
> copyrighted or if so whether it's worth doing so. Certainly, it's the
> tree that contains the license, not the individual ebuilds, etc, which
> give the copyright statement but little more. Gentoo policy would seem
> to be, then, that it's the work of the tree as a whole that's
> copyrighted. Individual ebuilds may or may not be, and it's /implied/
> (which isn't necessarily legally binding) that if they are, there'd be
> little attempt at enforcement unless a significant portion of the tree
> was copied/modified.
>
I think at current gentoo policy is good. I don't want to have the possibility
to have individual licence for individual ebuild because that can block a
licence change if such a change become a necessity.

> That's a long and predictably controversial debate. See all the
> electrons spilled on it debating the Linux kernel, for instance. While I
> personally support the FSF and GPL3, there's a definitely valid position
> held by some that the code return requirements of GPL2 are sufficient,
> that Tivoization should be specifically allowed, because the code is
> returned, even if it doesn't work on their specific product without the
> signing keys and etc.
>

It doesn't matter if gentoo tree is v2 or v3 in regard of tivoization because
no one single program in portage is linked against the tree or an eclass.

I also think at the tivoization issue is not valid for the patches in the
ebuild-xyz/files folder, because they are in the tree and the tree is under gpl
v2.

So in fact, it doesn't matter in regard of tivoization if the tre is under v2
or v3. I am not a layer, but I will be very surprised if I am wrong on that
point.

I don't know if an individual patches in some ebuild-xyz/files folder can be
under v3 or v2 and later in order to be able to legally patch a gpl-v3 xyz
software.

The situation is: the ebuild-xyz have a patch under gpl-v2 in its files folder
because it is in the tree and the whole tree is v2 only. And the software xyz
is under gpl-v3. The problem is at I think at it will not be allowed by the
software xyz because gpl-v3 is not compatible with a patch under the gpl-v2
only licence. The patch's licence must be gpl-v2 or later, gpl-v3, or gpl-v3 or
later.

Dominique
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 09:07:20PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
> Le Mon, 9 Jul 2007 09:39:14 -0700,
> Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> a ??crit :
>
> > On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 04:46:57PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
> > >
> > > I personally think at gpl-3 is better as gpl-2 because GPLv3 will block
> > > tivoization.
> >
> > Only if the kernel is changed to v3, which it will not be.
> >
> > So this crusade by the FSF to stop what they explicitly said was a legal
> > use of v2, never succeeded, so please stop trying to worry about it.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
>
> I don't want to force anyone to use v3, I was just saying at v3 is better as v2
> from my point of vue. Maybe I am wrong, but just to say at I am wrong is not
> enough.

I never stated that you are wrong about why you feel v3 is better for
you, I only stated that if you are worried about the "tivoization"
issue, then you have a long time to be worried, as it only affects the
kernel. Also, since the Linux kernel is not going to change licenses,
this whole thing really isn't an issue at all.

> Can you explain more. If the kernel can be tivoized by someone

I'm sorry, but "tivoized" is not a verb. Please explain what you mean
by this.

> , who will use this kernel? How can this affect the software xyz that
> have a v3 licence?

I do not understand the question, can you reprase it?

thanks,

greg k-h
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Dominique Michel <dominique.michel@citycable.ch> posted
20070709213752.0dfa2b72@localhost, excerpted below, on Mon, 09 Jul 2007
21:37:52 +0200:

> So in fact, it doesn't matter in regard of tivoization if the tre is
> under v2 or v3. I am not a layer, but I will be very surprised if I am
> wrong on that point.

Agreed. Tivoization shouldn't be an issue in this case for several
reasons. The Gentoo alternative just doesn't make sense for someone
trying to tivoize, as there are better alternatives (virtually anything
package manager designed primarily to work with binaries, as opposed to
source).

> I don't know if an individual patches in some ebuild-xyz/files folder
> can be under v3 or v2 and later in order to be able to legally patch a
> gpl-v3 xyz software.
>
> The situation is: the ebuild-xyz have a patch under gpl-v2 in its files
> folder because it is in the tree and the whole tree is v2 only. And the
> software xyz is under gpl-v3. The problem is at I think at it will not
> be allowed by the software xyz because gpl-v3 is not compatible with a
> patch under the gpl-v2 only licence. The patch's licence must be gpl-v2
> or later, gpl-v3, or gpl-v3 or later.

That's not an issue, because the copyright and license on the tree is on
the collective whole, not on the components, which if copyrightable will
have their own licenses. That's a very common and legally well supported
principle, that the collection gets its own copyright apart from the
components. Related but a slightly different angle is the "mere
aggregation" clause of the GPLv2 (and I believe v3 as well, I don't know
it as well yet). That a collection of otherwise uncopyrightable
"trivials" or information in the public domain can yet be copyrighted is
also legally well supported. Databases and phonebooks are precedents
there.

Lest anyone get a very wrong idea, IANAL, tho the area is of some
interest to me, so I follow it to some degree.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

> > Can you explain more. If the kernel can be tivoized by someone
>
> I'm sorry, but "tivoized" is not a verb. Please explain what you mean
> by this.

I mean if someone distribute a kernel with a licence that forbid to remove the
functions he added even if we don't want them (as example drm at the kernel
level as in Vista),

>
> > , who will use this kernel? How can this affect the software xyz that
> > have a v3 licence?
>
> I do not understand the question, can you reprase it?
>

who will use this kernel when we can get a vanilla kernel and plenty of
patches and do whatever we want to do with them?

Will this affect the licencing or the distribution of the software xyz?

> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

You are welcome,
Dominique
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 07:10:35PM +0200, Dominique Michel wrote:
>
> > > Can you explain more. If the kernel can be tivoized by someone
> >
> > I'm sorry, but "tivoized" is not a verb. Please explain what you mean
> > by this.
>
> I mean if someone distribute a kernel with a licence that forbid to remove the
> functions he added even if we don't want them (as example drm at the kernel
> level as in Vista),

But that's impossible with the current Linux kernel license, so how
could that ever happen? Why even try to discuss an impossiblity?

> > > , who will use this kernel? How can this affect the software xyz that
> > > have a v3 licence?
> >
> > I do not understand the question, can you reprase it?
> >
>
> who will use this kernel when we can get a vanilla kernel and plenty of
> patches and do whatever we want to do with them?

As creating such a kernel is not possible with the current Linux kernel,
again, I don't see how anyone could even use it.

> Will this affect the licencing or the distribution of the software xyz?

The license of the Linux kernel has no affect on the license or
distribution of any sofware that runs on top of it, so I do not see how
it would matter.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list