headers
Eric Blake | 1 Jul 2007 05:48
Gravatar

GPLv3


tar 1.18 was just released, and is one of the first GNU packages that
requires GPLv3 or later.  Meanwhile, cygwin is explicit in requiring
exactly GPLv2.  According to the GPLv3 FAQ, http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq,
it is NOT okay for a GPLv3 program to link against a GPLv2-only library.
So, what is the consensus - am I allowed to upload tar 1.18, or is cygwin
forevermore stuck at tar 1.17 as the last GPLv2 release, because of the
fact that building an image of tar 1.18 linked against cygwin1.dll
constitutes a license violation?

And this problem will only grow in the near future - other cygwin packages
that I maintain have discussed in their mailing lists that they are
actively in the process of converting to GPLv3, including findutils
(release expected tomorrow) and m4 (release expected later in the week).

--
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!

Eric Blake             ebb9@...
Permalink | Reply | 24 comments |
headers
Brian Dessent | 1 Jul 2007 06:12
Favicon

Re: GPLv3

Eric Blake wrote:

> tar 1.18 was just released, and is one of the first GNU packages that
> requires GPLv3 or later.  Meanwhile, cygwin is explicit in requiring
> exactly GPLv2.  According to the GPLv3 FAQ, http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq,
> it is NOT okay for a GPLv3 program to link against a GPLv2-only library.
> So, what is the consensus - am I allowed to upload tar 1.18, or is cygwin
> forevermore stuck at tar 1.17 as the last GPLv2 release, because of the
> fact that building an image of tar 1.18 linked against cygwin1.dll
> constitutes a license violation?

Remember that the Cygwin license includes an OSI exemption, so as long
as GPLv3 is eventually OSI certified (as if...) it's fine on the Cygwin
side.  I don't know about the other direction though.

Brian
Permalink | Reply | 23 comments |
headers
Eric Blake | 1 Jul 2007 16:16
Gravatar

Re: GPLv3


According to Brian Dessent on 6/30/2007 10:12 PM:
>> So, what is the consensus - am I allowed to upload tar 1.18, or is cygwin
>> forevermore stuck at tar 1.17 as the last GPLv2 release, because of the
>> fact that building an image of tar 1.18 linked against cygwin1.dll
>> constitutes a license violation?
> 
> Remember that the Cygwin license includes an OSI exemption, so as long
> as GPLv3 is eventually OSI certified (as if...) it's fine on the Cygwin
> side.  I don't know about the other direction though.

Thanks for the reminder about the exception clause.  Since packaging tar
1.18 does not modify the sources to cygwin1.dll, I agree that the GPLv2
exception offered by cygwin is applicable here.  I don't think GPLv3 will
have any problem achieving OSI exemption, so I went ahead and uploaded tar
1.18.

--
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!

Eric Blake             ebb9@...
Permalink | Reply | 22 comments |
headers
Eric Blake | 1 Jul 2007 16:24
Gravatar

Re: GPLv3


According to Eric Blake on 7/1/2007 8:16 AM:
> Thanks for the reminder about the exception clause.  Since packaging tar
> 1.18 does not modify the sources to cygwin1.dll, I agree that the GPLv2
> exception offered by cygwin is applicable here.  I don't think GPLv3 will
> have any problem achieving OSI exemption, so I went ahead and uploaded tar
                                 ^^^^^^^^^
s/exemption/certification/
> 1.18.
> 

--
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!

Eric Blake             ebb9@...
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Corinna Vinschen | 2 Jul 2007 09:39
Favicon

Re: GPLv3

On Jul  1 08:16, Eric Blake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> According to Brian Dessent on 6/30/2007 10:12 PM:
> >> So, what is the consensus - am I allowed to upload tar 1.18, or is cygwin
> >> forevermore stuck at tar 1.17 as the last GPLv2 release, because of the
> >> fact that building an image of tar 1.18 linked against cygwin1.dll
> >> constitutes a license violation?
> > 
> > Remember that the Cygwin license includes an OSI exemption, so as long
> > as GPLv3 is eventually OSI certified (as if...) it's fine on the Cygwin
> > side.  I don't know about the other direction though.
> 
> Thanks for the reminder about the exception clause.  Since packaging tar
> 1.18 does not modify the sources to cygwin1.dll, I agree that the GPLv2
> exception offered by cygwin is applicable here.  I don't think GPLv3 will
> have any problem achieving OSI exemption, so I went ahead and uploaded tar
> 1.18.

It's still an interesting point since the GPLv3 linked against a GPLv2
lib with excemption.  I'll try to get legal advice about Cygwin and the
GPLv3.

Corinna

--

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 20 comments |
headers
Corinna Vinschen | 2 Jul 2007 12:19
Favicon

Re: [ITP] perl-5.8.8

On Jun 28 21:32, Reini Urban wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen schrieb:
> >On Jun 21 20:24, Reini Urban wrote:
> >>Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes schrieb:
> >>>On Tue, June 19, 2007 7:24 pm, Reini Urban wrote:
> >>>>I want to it take over from Gerrit.
> >>>Thank you so much.  If it were up to me, you'd get three gold stars.
> >>>
> >>>>Please try to test it. It's a really weird build system.
> >>>>But I'm quite happy with this 5.8.8
> >>http://rurban.xarch.at/software/cygwin/release/perl/perl-5.8.8-1.tar.bz2
> >>http://rurban.xarch.at/software/cygwin/release/perl/perl-5.8.8-1-src.tar.bz2
>
>>http://rurban.xarch.at/software/cygwin/release/perl/perl_manpages/perl_manpages-5.8.8-1.tar.bz2 
> [...]
> We had a routing problem this day. Please try again.

I'm just looking for the packaging itself.  I'm not a perl programmer,
so I assume you're looking for creating a actually *working* perl
yourself ;)

Ok, that's what looks not quite ok to me:

- Your package pollutes the /usr/bin directory with two versions of
  *almost* every tool in the perl package, foo, foo5.8.8, bar, bar5.8.8,
  etc.  The former 5.8.7 package only created a perl5.8.8 parallel to
  the perl exe, but all other binaries were only available without
  versioning, same as in the Linux distros I have my hands on, btw.

  Almost, because there are two variances:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Andrew Schulman | 2 Jul 2007 16:40
Picon

Re: GPLv3

> I'll try to get legal advice about Cygwin and the
> GPLv3.

All this licensing stuff gives me headaches.  I gave up trying to understand
it long ago.  

Corinna, whenever you or someone else gets legal advice about this, I'd
appreciate it if a policy could be posted stating as clearly as possible for
us packagers what we can and can't do, and what traps to watch out for, as
regards the various licenses.

Thanks, Andrew.
Permalink | Reply | 19 comments |
headers
Corinna Vinschen | 2 Jul 2007 17:18
Favicon

Re: GPLv3

On Jul  2 10:40, Andrew Schulman wrote:
> > I'll try to get legal advice about Cygwin and the
> > GPLv3.
> 
> All this licensing stuff gives me headaches.  I gave up trying to understand
> it long ago.  

Unfortunately the wording of the GPLv3 got rather less easy to
understand than the GPLv2.  I can see why, but it's unfortunate
just the same.

> Corinna, whenever you or someone else gets legal advice about this, I'd
> appreciate it if a policy could be posted stating as clearly as possible for
> us packagers what we can and can't do, and what traps to watch out for, as
> regards the various licenses.

Sure.  I'm already in internal discussion but this might take a while
longer.  The GPLv2 vs. GPLv3 issue has a couple of implications for Red
Hat so changes will not be made lightheaded.  I hope a decision is due
soon.

In the meantime, treat the http://cygwin.com/licensing.html page as
state of the art, especially the open source permission clause.

Corinna

--

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 18 comments |
headers
Andrew Schulman | 2 Jul 2007 17:28
Picon

Re: GPLv3

> In the meantime, treat the http://cygwin.com/licensing.html page as
> state of the art, especially the open source permission clause.

Thanks.
Permalink | Reply | 17 comments |
headers
Reini Urban | 2 Jul 2007 19:06
Picon
Gravatar

Re: [ITP] perl-5.8.8

Corinna Vinschen schrieb:
> On Jun 28 21:32, Reini Urban wrote:
>> Corinna Vinschen schrieb:
>>> On Jun 21 20:24, Reini Urban wrote:
>>>> Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes schrieb:
>>>>> On Tue, June 19, 2007 7:24 pm, Reini Urban wrote:
>>>>>> I want to it take over from Gerrit.
>>>>> Thank you so much.  If it were up to me, you'd get three gold stars.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Please try to test it. It's a really weird build system.
>>>>>> But I'm quite happy with this 5.8.8
>>>> http://rurban.xarch.at/software/cygwin/release/perl/perl-5.8.8-1.tar.bz2
>>>> http://rurban.xarch.at/software/cygwin/release/perl/perl-5.8.8-1-src.tar.bz2
>>>>
http://rurban.xarch.at/software/cygwin/release/perl/perl_manpages/perl_manpages-5.8.8-1.tar.bz2 
>> [...]
>> We had a routing problem this day. Please try again.
> 
> I'm just looking for the packaging itself.  I'm not a perl programmer,
> so I assume you're looking for creating a actually *working* perl
> yourself ;)

Hmm, that's bad. Feedback from an actual perl programmer would be better.

> Ok, that's what looks not quite ok to me:
> 
> - Your package pollutes the /usr/bin directory with two versions of
>   *almost* every tool in the perl package, foo, foo5.8.8, bar, bar5.8.8,
>   etc.  The former 5.8.7 package only created a perl5.8.8 parallel to
>   the perl exe, but all other binaries were only available without
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |

Gmane