Hello, in some KDE applications (for example yakuake) there is a quite uncommon GPL header in the source files, which reads like this:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License or (at your option) version 3 or any later version accepted by the membership of KDE e.V. (or its successor appro- ved by the membership of KDE e.V.), which shall act as a proxy defined in Section 14 of version 3 of the license.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/.
In the review for knights ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674180 ) the question how to handle this came up. What would be the appropriate License tag in the spec file? Would be nice if legal could shed some light on this :)
Regards, Julian
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 09:20:47PM +0100, Julian Aloofi wrote:
Hello, in some KDE applications (for example yakuake) there is a quite uncommon GPL header in the source files, which reads like this:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License or (at your option) version 3 or any later version accepted by the membership of KDE e.V. (or its successor appro- ved by the membership of KDE e.V.), which shall act as a proxy defined in Section 14 of version 3 of the license.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/.
In the review for knights ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674180 ) the question how to handle this came up. What would be the appropriate License tag in the spec file? Would be nice if legal could shed some light on this :)
Ah, this is an interesting one. As the license notice points out, GPLv3 introduces this concept of projects appointing a "proxy" who can decide whether future versions of the GPL are acceptable or not, as an alternative to both "GPLvn only" and "GPLvn or later". Maybe it's only practical for Fedora to label this as "GPLv2 or GPLv3", and if in the distant future the KDE organization also approved GPLv4 the license tag could just be updated accordingly (much like any special license change might be treated). Look to spot for the official answer though.
- RF
On 02/07/2011 03:52 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
Maybe it's only practical for Fedora to label this as "GPLv2 or GPLv3", and if in the distant future the KDE organization also approved GPLv4 the license tag could just be updated accordingly (much like any special license change might be treated). Look to spot for the official answer though.
I think this is sensible. Handle it like this:
# KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are accepted License: GPLv2 and GPLv3
~tom
== Fedora Project
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 03:59:12PM -0500, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 02/07/2011 03:52 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
Maybe it's only practical for Fedora to label this as "GPLv2 or GPLv3", and if in the distant future the KDE organization also approved GPLv4 the license tag could just be updated accordingly (much like any special license change might be treated). Look to spot for the official answer though.
I think this is sensible. Handle it like this:
# KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are accepted License: GPLv2 and GPLv3
Shouldn't it be "GPLv2 or GPLv3"? It's like a (disjunctive) dual license.
- RF
On 02/07/2011 04:06 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 03:59:12PM -0500, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 02/07/2011 03:52 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
Maybe it's only practical for Fedora to label this as "GPLv2 or GPLv3", and if in the distant future the KDE organization also approved GPLv4 the license tag could just be updated accordingly (much like any special license change might be treated). Look to spot for the official answer though.
I think this is sensible. Handle it like this:
# KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are accepted License: GPLv2 and GPLv3
Shouldn't it be "GPLv2 or GPLv3"? It's like a (disjunctive) dual license.
Yes, you're right. It is a Monday.
# KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are accepted License: GPLv2 or GPLv3
~tom
== Fedora Project
Am Montag, den 07.02.2011, 16:54 -0500 schrieb Tom Callaway:
On 02/07/2011 04:06 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 03:59:12PM -0500, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 02/07/2011 03:52 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
Maybe it's only practical for Fedora to label this as "GPLv2 or GPLv3", and if in the distant future the KDE organization also approved GPLv4 the license tag could just be updated accordingly (much like any special license change might be treated). Look to spot for the official answer though.
I think this is sensible. Handle it like this:
# KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are accepted License: GPLv2 and GPLv3
Shouldn't it be "GPLv2 or GPLv3"? It's like a (disjunctive) dual license.
Yes, you're right. It is a Monday.
# KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are accepted License: GPLv2 or GPLv3
~tom
Thanks to both of you for the quick clarification! :)
Oh, and before burying this thread: Wouldn't it would make sense to put out an announcement on the devel and kde list for maintainers to check whether their application includes such a license header? I've only found it in yakuake and amarok (src/widgets/FlowLayout.cpp) yet, but I guess it is probably used in more applications.
Julian
On 02/07/2011 05:49 PM, Julian Aloofi wrote:
Oh, and before burying this thread: Wouldn't it would make sense to put out an announcement on the devel and kde list for maintainers to check whether their application includes such a license header? I've only found it in yakuake and amarok (src/widgets/FlowLayout.cpp) yet, but I guess it is probably used in more applications.
Sure. Feel free to do so, as I'm not normally on the kde list.
~tom
== Fedora Project
if this is of any help, we just added this license to Ninka (our license identification tool http://ninka.turingmachine.org). Armijn Hemel was scanning some products and discovered it. He also discovered a similar LGPL variant (which we haven't added yet). If you are interested on scanning for this license, use the code under git.
--daniel
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Julian Aloofi julian.fedoralists@googlemail.com wrote:
Oh, and before burying this thread: Wouldn't it would make sense to put out an announcement on the devel and kde list for maintainers to check whether their application includes such a license header? I've only found it in yakuake and amarok (src/widgets/FlowLayout.cpp) yet, but I guess it is probably used in more applications.
Julian
legal mailing list legal@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 16:54 -0500, Tom Callaway wrote:
# KDE e.V. may determine that future GPL versions are accepted License: GPLv2 or GPLv3
If it would be desirable to represent all the information in the License tag for easier mass checking of packages, I would propose this syntax:
License: GPLv2 or GPLv3(+KDE)
-
dmg -
Julian Aloofi -
Matt McCutchen -
Richard Fontana -
Tom Callaway