Mailing List Archive

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:55:26 +0200
Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Well, documention won't help to resolve the legal questions about this
> (what exactly is necessary to assign copyright from a person to the
> foundation), and that's the main problem IMO.

I never realised this was controversial. In that case, Mr. Frysinger is
correct in stating this thread should probably be moved to this
exciting "trustees list" he keeps mentioning. :)


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

> >Correct, it does, just like it permits C applications with
> >GPL-incompatible licenses to link with GPL libraries, so long as this
> >linking is done by the end user and the application is not distributed
> >in its linked form. See for example the NVidia kernel module, or for a
> >somewhat different but similar example, cdrtools.
>
> Not true:
>
> cdrecord and "all-1" programs in cdrtrools are 100% CDDL.
>
> mkisofs is a GPL project that links to non-GPL libraries.
> This is something that is no problem with the GPLv2 as long as the
> libraries are not derived from or written for GPL code.
>
> As the libraries mkisofs links with are older than mkisofs or at
> least written independently and usage neutral, there is no problem
> even with binaray redistribution of mkisofs.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

Neither the FSF nor you hold the copyright to mkisofs, but still, I'll
take the FSF's own interpretation over yours. If others believe you're
right, that's their choice.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Friday 13 July 2007, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Well, documention won't help to resolve the legal questions about this
> > (what exactly is necessary to assign copyright from a person to the
> > foundation), and that's the main problem IMO.
>
> I never realised this was controversial. In that case, Mr. Frysinger is
> correct in stating this thread should probably be moved to this
> exciting "trustees list" he keeps mentioning. :)

Mr. Frysinger is my dad, stoopid
-mike

On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 07:04:20AM +0200, Harald van Dijk wrote:
> > >Correct, it does, just like it permits C applications with
> > >GPL-incompatible licenses to link with GPL libraries, so long as this
> > >linking is done by the end user and the application is not distributed
> > >in its linked form. See for example the NVidia kernel module, or for a
> > >somewhat different but similar example, cdrtools.
> >
> > Not true:
> >
> > cdrecord and "all-1" programs in cdrtrools are 100% CDDL.
> >
> > mkisofs is a GPL project that links to non-GPL libraries.
> > This is something that is no problem with the GPLv2 as long as the
> > libraries are not derived from or written for GPL code.
> >
> > As the libraries mkisofs links with are older than mkisofs or at
> > least written independently and usage neutral, there is no problem
> > even with binaray redistribution of mkisofs.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
>
> Neither the FSF nor you hold the copyright to mkisofs, but still, I'll
> take the FSF's own interpretation over yours. If others believe you're
> right, that's their choice.

Besides, as I recall, the decision for cdrkit was based on a
disagreement over the build system license, not the license of
libraries. Sorry, that's what I should've said, and that's all I
should've said; the rest is not relevant here.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:33:04 Steve Long wrote:
> OFC you require all Gentoo ebuilds to be assigned to Gentoo-- that's fair
> enough, I accept and support that. It just seems odd that we can't
> contribute under GPL3 if we so choose. But yeah, all stuff in Gentoo is (C)
> by the Foundation, and it's all available under GPL2 only. The Foundation
> can aiui change that to any license it chooses, in the same way as the FSF
> has changed the license for its copyrighted works to GPL3.

Hi Steve,

I'm a bit late in replying to you, but I hope the following will clarify
things. First the reason why gentoo is not GPL-2 or later. Basically doing so
opens your software up to the whims of the FSF without allowing you to
consider whether the new version of the license is desirable or not. With
central copyright ownership (whether or not it is legal) it would not be an
issue either because the foundation / gentoo technologies (in the time) could
relicense it when needed.

The second one, why not GPL-3. First of all, is an ebuild a derived work of
skel.ebuild? Personally and as a trustee I have no idea of whether it is a
derived work from skel.ebuild at all. Or whether skel.ebuild could be seen as
a creative work in the sense of the Berne convention (International copyright
threaty). What I know is that in general deciding this criterion for software
is rather hard. Especially with something this short. One of the criteria is
whether it would be straightforward to reproduce the code similarly without
having seen the original. If you were to remove all comments from skel.ebuild
this criterion seem likely to hold (IANAL). So depending your judgement or
the legal advice you take (I can not tell you what is the truth, or what is
the foundation position on this), you might be able to put any license
desired on ebuilds you write yourself.

Whether or not we would accept new ebuilds under GPL-3 or not, that is a
different issue altogether. Currently all gentoo software that is not in the
form of patches to other people's work is released under the GPL-2. At some
point in time there used to be some policy about this, but it seems to have
disappeared. Perhaps something that might be discussed.

Paul

--
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Petteri Räty wrote:
> David kirjoitti:
>> 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.
>
That's why ;)


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Duncan wrote:
> 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).
>
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.

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

> 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.
>
AIUI it doesn't really matter how past contributors feel (legally-speaking)
in that they explicitly gave copyright to Gentoo. It's understood when you
commit an ebuild (and indeed the notice is right in front of you.) So this
is not the same as retaining copyright and releasing under GPLv2 only,
where your consent would be required for a switch to GPLv3. Personally
speaking, anything I have contributed to Gentoo (minor stuff ofc) I did to
give something back to Gentoo. If Gentoo as a whole decides to use it in
whatever way, that's fine by me (and since I explicitly gave up copyright
to Gentoo, it couldn't matter anyhow.)

As for patent protection I see it more as projects all supporting each other
so that if you want to work with Free software you agree you're not going
to sue each other. This establishes a safe environment as opposed to the
current situation wherein a company can benefit from others' GPL2 work, and
yet still sue them under patent laws. The hassle of showing that patents
already granted are obvious or duplicating prior art, is one that Free
software cannot afford.

OFC a judge may still decide GPL3 work breaches a patent. The point is that
it's a lot harder to sue the whole community, especially as there is so
much software already written. And by using GPL3, companies actually get
*more assurance* than currently. So it's applying the core principles to
patents, that we already benefit from with copyright.

> 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.
>
Yeah, well as i see it it's up to the Foundation, which means all the devs.
And if, as you say, many are anti-GPL3, it's just not going to happen. But
that's all that's required: imo there are no legal obstacles to switching.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Greg KH wrote:
> The GPLv2 is all about distribution, not use cases, so yes, this is the
> case and is perfictly legal with GPLv2 (even the FSF explicitly told
> Tivo that what they were doing was legal and acceptable.)
>
Well legal, maybe, ie acceptable under the terms.

> So, what is the problem here? The kernel is not going to change
> licenses any time soon, so I don't understand your objections.
>
I think the point is that people who oppose this kind of thing (yes,
including me) would rather _our_ contributions were under GPLv3. Yet at the
moment, we effectively have no choice.

Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I wrote from
scratch?

(NB this is the ebuild, not the software packaged.)


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Chris Gianelloni wrote:

> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:18 +0100, Steve Long wrote:
>> Or is it `acceptable' for me to put GPLv3 on, say, an ebuild I wrote from
>> scratch?
>
> The point is that we don't feel that you *can* write an ebuild "from
> scratch" since it will require certain components, which we feel require
> you to base your ebuild on skel.ebuild instead. Basically, if it's an
> ebuild and not something else (spec/pkginfo/control) then it is based
> off the one skeleton ebuild which is father to them all, skel.ebuild...
>
I understand what you're getting at but when I first wanted to write an
ebuild so my kid could use synfig[1], I hadn't even looked at skel.ebuild
(lame, I know. I'd heard of it but wanted to do my own thing- I'm funny
like that.) I just based it all on the devmanual functions (since that was
linked from the forums) and to me that is akin to reading eg
http://wooledge.org/mywiki/BashGuide and then writing a script (although a
lot simpler.) I certainly wouldn't accept that it was based in any way on
skel.ebuild.

I have only just opened skel.ebuild for the first time while copying all the
portage/skel.* files to make an ebuild (thought I'd try it) for medit which
can be used by pida (altho it needs a new plugin for the new version.)
First time I've ever seen the comments from drobbins in the changelog as
well. TBH I got tired of all the comments in skel.ebuild since I am up to
speed with bash, and was just going to delete it all and start from
scratch. I thought I should post since my instinct is to put GPL3 on
anything I send out, that isn't work-related.

OFC you require all Gentoo ebuilds to be assigned to Gentoo-- that's fair
enough, I accept and support that. It just seems odd that we can't
contribute under GPL3 if we so choose. But yeah, all stuff in Gentoo is (C)
by the Foundation, and it's all available under GPL2 only. The Foundation
can aiui change that to any license it chooses, in the same way as the FSF
has changed the license for its copyrighted works to GPL3.

I agree with Mr McCreesh however, that it is perfectly possible to write an
ebuild without looking at skel.ebuild, as I have done it. The devmanual
gives enough information to do so.

Please note, this is not some paranoia thing about assignment, nor is it a
crusade for GPL3. I am happy that I can use Gentoo, period.

BTW _Congratulations_ on the excellent write-up in linuxformat! They gave
the new release 9 out of 10. They seemed impressed both by the new
installer and the networkless install.
_ _
[1] These are the bugs for synfig: you'll see from ETL-20060929 that my
first ebuild really was simple :-) None of the ones I put in was based on
skel.ebuild.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111277 -- ETL
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111278 -- synfig
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111279 -- synfig-studio

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1 is
great as well, but I only found that link relatively recently (3 or 4
months ago in #-dev-help)

[sorry for length]


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Greg KH wrote:
>> > So, what is the problem here? The kernel is not going to change
>> > licenses any time soon, so I don't understand your objections.
>> >
>> I think the point is that people who oppose this kind of thing (yes,
>> including me) would rather _our_ contributions were under GPLv3. Yet at
>> the moment, we effectively have no choice.
>
> That is _totally_ different than the case which was specifically brought
> up about the whole "tivo" issue and the Linux kernel.
>
> Ebuilds are different, I have no opinion on that (but I do know that the
> DRM issues mean nothing for them, that only pertains to the kernel).
>
OK, but what about a corporation selling Gentoo-based tivo boxes? Updates
are carried out as, say, binary images, and they continue to use all the
flexibility of Gentoo (built by its users, and devs who are also users)
while curtailing Gentoo users' rights.

I understand the argument that eg GCC is a paintbox, and the FSF don't want
copyright over your paintings, but do want improvements to the toolset to
be shared by all. I /had/ thought "3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From
Anti-Circumvention Law" meant that GCC could not be used to build such a
system:
"No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure
under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the
WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws"
Hmm got that wrong I guess, my bad. (I guess you can tell I ain't a
lawyer ;-))

I still don't like it :-) I also wonder how the above applies to BASH, which
is usually such a critical element of a GNU/Linux system.. I guess that's
what other shells, under less protective licenses, will be used for tho.

(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html for users who don't have the url.)


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Marius Mauch wrote:
> Well, documention won't help to resolve the legal questions about this
> (what exactly is necessary to assign copyright from a person to the
> foundation), and that's the main problem IMO.
>
Yeah, but most of us are pretty well aware that we're submitting an ebuild
with Gentoo copyright on it. I think the vast majority are perfectly happy
for it to help Gentoo under whatever license you guys think is appropriate.

It's not like we don't see the copyright notice, and are unaware of it. The
only question is why can't that be GPL3? It's not exactly stopping Gentoo
from using the ebuild.

But it does imply that the ebuild cannot be used for Tivo-ised systems,
which I for one, would much prefer for anything I contribute to.

Like I say tho, whatever is best for Gentoo as a whole.



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list