headers
Erik Krause | 5 Aug 2007 11:33
Picon
Picon

Helmut clarified the license issue on PanotoolsNG

Hello,

Helmut Dersch just posted to PanotoolsNG a clarification of the 
panotools license. He affirms the GPL for panotools and said he 
wanted to change the pano12 license to LGPL.

best regards
--
Erik Krause
Offenburger Str. 33
79108 Freiburg

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/
Permalink | Reply | 12 comments |
headers
Bruno Postle | 5 Aug 2007 13:40
X-Face

Re: Helmut clarified the license issue on PanotoolsNG

On Sun 05-Aug-2007 at 11:33 +0200, Erik Krause wrote:
>
> Helmut Dersch just posted to PanotoolsNG a clarification of the 
> panotools license. He affirms the GPL for panotools and said he 
> wanted to change the pano12 license to LGPL.

It's nice to have a clarification.  Note that in order to re-release 
the current pano12 branch under the LGPL, all the contributors need 
to agree to this work being under the "LGPL v2 or later".  This is 
the full list from the ChangeLog:

Bret McKee
Bruno Postle
Daniel M. German
Douglas Wilkins
Helmut Dersch
Jim Watters
Kekus Digital
Marek Januszewski (specu)
Max Lyons
Pablo D'Angelo
Thomas Rauscher

I haven't contributed much more than housekeeping, so I can't really 
claim anything.  I'll agree to the license change for what it's 
worth.

--

-- 
Bruno
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Max Lyons | 5 Aug 2007 14:01
Picon

Re: Helmut clarified the license issue on PanotoolsNG

> It's nice to have a clarification.  Note that in order to re-release 
> the current pano12 branch under the LGPL, all the contributors need 
> to agree to this work being under the "LGPL v2 or later".  

It is fine with me.

Max

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Thomas Rauscher | 5 Aug 2007 14:43
Picon

Re: Helmut clarified the license issue on PanotoolsNG

Hello, on 05.08.2007 13:40 Uhr Bruno Postle said the following:
 > On Sun 05-Aug-2007 at 11:33 +0200, Erik Krause wrote:
 >> Helmut Dersch just posted to PanotoolsNG a clarification of the
 >> panotools license. He affirms the GPL for panotools and said he
 >> wanted to change the pano12 license to LGPL.
 >
 > It's nice to have a clarification.  Note that in order to re-release
 > the current pano12 branch under the LGPL, all the contributors need
 > to agree to this work being under the "LGPL v2 or later".

Very fine with me. I am very glad that Helmut Dersch considered my 
arguments.

--
MfG,
      Thomas.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
yuval levy | 5 Aug 2007 16:26
Picon
Favicon

Re: Helmut clarified the license issue on PanotoolsNG

the next logical step is for him to join this project,
if only to assert his "founding father" role, or
(wishful thinking) to give new direction and impetus
to the development of the tools.

Yuv

--- Erik Krause <erik.krause@...> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Helmut Dersch just posted to PanotoolsNG a
> clarification of the 
> panotools license. He affirms the GPL for panotools
> and said he 
> wanted to change the pano12 license to LGPL.
> 
> best regards
> --
> Erik Krause
> Offenburger Str. 33
> 79108 Freiburg
> 
> 
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> Still grepping through log files to find problems? 
> Stop.
> Now Search log events and configuration files using
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jim Watters | 5 Aug 2007 23:07
Picon
Favicon

Re: Helmut clarified the license issue on PanotoolsNG

Thomas Rauscher wrote:
> Hello, on 05.08.2007 13:40 Uhr Bruno Postle said the following:
>  > On Sun 05-Aug-2007 at 11:33 +0200, Erik Krause wrote:
>  >> Helmut Dersch just posted to PanotoolsNG a clarification of the
>  >> panotools license. He affirms the GPL for panotools and said he
>  >> wanted to change the pano12 license to LGPL.
>  >
>  > It's nice to have a clarification.  Note that in order to re-release
>  > the current pano12 branch under the LGPL, all the contributors need
>  > to agree to this work being under the "LGPL v2 or later".
>
> Very fine with me. I am very glad that Helmut Dersch considered my 
> arguments.
>
> --
> MfG,
>       Thomas.
>   
LGPL is good with me too.

--

-- 
Jim Watters

Yahoo ID: j1vvy ymsgr:sendIM?j1vvy
jwatters  <at>  photocreations . ca
http://photocreations.ca

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Daniel M German | 6 Aug 2007 04:33
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Helmut clarified the license issue on PanotoolsNG


 Bruno> On Sun 05-Aug-2007 at 11:33 +0200, Erik Krause wrote:
 >> 
 >> Helmut Dersch just posted to PanotoolsNG a clarification of the 
 >> panotools license. He affirms the GPL for panotools and said he 
 >> wanted to change the pano12 license to LGPL.

 Bruno> It's nice to have a clarification.  Note that in order to re-release 
 Bruno> the current pano12 branch under the LGPL, all the contributors need 
 Bruno> to agree to this work being under the "LGPL v2 or later".  This is 
 Bruno> the full list from the ChangeLog:

I'll be happy to donate my changes in the latest version to
Helmut. This will simplify any change in license.

His message is a bit cryptic. He seems to imply that he will release
his latest version of pano12.dll as LGPL, not the sourceforge version.

He has stated that the change in license is not retroactive.  This
creates interesting legal repercusions. If he does not take command of
the pano12 branch, then it can't be LGPLed automatically. It will be
necessary to create a patch to whatever he releases as the LGPL-pano12
and marge them accordingly. Sourceforge's Pano12 is a derivative work
of the (old) GPL version, hence GPL. It needs to become a derivative
work of the LGPL version.

If he is not interested in continuing developing pano13, then the same
should be done with it. That way pano13 GPL legal standing is
independent of him.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Bruno Postle | 6 Aug 2007 10:46
X-Face

Re: Helmut clarified the license issue on PanotoolsNG

Oops, sorry I missed out Rik Littlefield and Fulvio Senore from the 
list.

[Cc'd to panotools-devel]

-- 
Bruno

On Mon 06-Aug-2007 at 09:19 +0200, Fulvio Senore wrote:
>>
>> It's nice to have a clarification.  Note that in order to re-release the 
>> current pano12 branch under the LGPL, all the contributors need to agree 
>> to this work being under the "LGPL v2 or later".  This is the full list 
>> from the ChangeLog:
>>
>> Bret McKee
>> Bruno Postle
>> Daniel M. German
>> Douglas Wilkins
>> Helmut Dersch
>> Jim Watters
>> Kekus Digital
>> Marek Januszewski (specu)
>> Max Lyons
>> Pablo D'Angelo
>> Thomas Rauscher
>>   
> The list is not complete. I added fast transform, and I remember that Rik 
> Littlefield speeded up the optimizer a lot.
> I agree to the license change.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Bruno Postle | 6 Aug 2007 11:05
X-Face

Re: Helmut clarified the license issue on PanotoolsNG

On Sun 05-Aug-2007 at 19:33 -0700, Daniel M. German wrote:
>
>His message is a bit cryptic. He seems to imply that he will release
>his latest version of pano12.dll as LGPL, not the sourceforge version.

Helmut can only relicense code that he owns himself.

>He has stated that the change in license is not retroactive.

I think this is just signalling that the current usage wasn't 
approved.

>This creates interesting legal repercusions. If he does not take 
>command of the pano12 branch, then it can't be LGPLed 
>automatically. It will be necessary to create a patch to whatever 
>he releases as the LGPL-pano12 and marge them accordingly. 

Only if he releases something with significant differences.

>Sourceforge's Pano12 is a derivative work of the (old) GPL version, 
>hence GPL. It needs to become a derivative work of the LGPL 
>version.

Of course anyone can take the existing GPL sources and continue to 
release and modify them under the GPL.

--

-- 
Bruno

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Daniel M German | 6 Aug 2007 11:26
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: Helmut clarified the license issue on PanotoolsNG


Hi Bruno,

 Bruno> On Sun 05-Aug-2007 at 19:33 -0700, Daniel M. German wrote:
 >> 
 >> His message is a bit cryptic. He seems to imply that he will release
 >> his latest version of pano12.dll as LGPL, not the sourceforge version.

 Bruno> Helmut can only relicense code that he owns himself.

Of course.  

Technically speaking SF panotools and Helmut's panotools are different
products. Changing the license of one does not automatically affect
the other.

What we need is a statement from him that agrees that his code in
SourceForge becomes LGPL (plus the acceptance of anybody who has code
in it too, which I suspect will not be a problem).

 Bruno> [...]
 Bruno> Only if he releases something with significant differences.

Let us hope that he comes to this list to make that statement. That
will make thing simpler and avoid any complication.

 >> Sourceforge's Pano12 is a derivative work of the (old) GPL version, 
 >> hence GPL. It needs to become a derivative work of the LGPL 
 >> version.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane