2:20 p.m.
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
2:52 p.m.
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
2:59 p.m.
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
3:06 p.m.
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
3:54 p.m.
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
4:27 p.m.
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! :)
4:49 p.m.
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
5:04 p.m.
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
5:13 p.m.
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(a)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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
--
--dmg
---
Daniel M. German
http://turingmachine.org
12:17 p.m.
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)
--
Matt
4819
days inactive
4825
days old
9 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
dmg -
Julian Aloofi -
Matt McCutchen -
Richard Fontana -
Tom Callaway