[drupal-devel] Drupal and GPL3
Anyone have thoughts on a possible modification to GPL3 that would require web sites to release source code? See http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5884172.html -- Dondley Communications http://www.dondleycommunications.com Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://www.communicateordie.com
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:17:23 +0200, Steve Dondley <sdondley@gmail.com> wrote:
Anyone have thoughts on a possible modification to GPL3 that would require web sites to release source code? See http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5884172.html
Rubbish, FUD etc. Read more esp. the original interview. If need to be, I'll post links. In short: this is not so.
More coverage http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/30/0627234&tid=117&tid=185&tid=95 On 9/30/05, Karoly Negyesi <karoly@negyesi.net> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:17:23 +0200, Steve Dondley <sdondley@gmail.com> wrote:
Anyone have thoughts on a possible modification to GPL3 that would require web sites to release source code? See http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5884172.html
Rubbish, FUD etc. Read more esp. the original interview. If need to be, I'll post links.
In short: this is not so.
------- Some companies, such as Google, use code covered by GPL to offer their services through the Web. Do you plan to extend GPL 3 copyleft to request code publication in this case too, considering this behavior like a product distribution? Running a program in a public server is not distribution; it is public use. We're looking at an approach where programs used in this way will have to include a command for the user to download the source for the version that is running. But this will not apply to all GPL-covered programs, only to programs that already contain such a command. Thus, this change would have no effect on existing software, but developers could activate it in the future. This is only a tentative plan, because we have not finished studying the matter to be sure it will work. How would it work? If you release a program that implements such a command, GPL 3 will require others to keep the command working in their modified versions of the program. -------
Please correct me if I am wrong. If existing codes of a project are licensed under GPL 2, and if someone from that project wants to license the codes with GPL 3 that command, EVERY code owner or contributor will need to agree on using the *new* license. realistically, if at least one ojbects the change, the codes can't be licensed with the new license. so GPL3 with that command doesn't apply to most of the existing projects. or someone can fork an project and apply the GPL 3 license. It can be used on any new project though. On 9/30/05, Karoly Negyesi <karoly@negyesi.net> wrote:
------- Some companies, such as Google, use code covered by GPL to offer their services through the Web. Do you plan to extend GPL 3 copyleft to request code publication in this case too, considering this behavior like a product distribution?
Running a program in a public server is not distribution; it is public use. We're looking at an approach where programs used in this way will have to include a command for the user to download the source for the version that is running.
But this will not apply to all GPL-covered programs, only to programs that already contain such a command. Thus, this change would have no effect on existing software, but developers could activate it in the future.
This is only a tentative plan, because we have not finished studying the matter to be sure it will work.
How would it work?
If you release a program that implements such a command, GPL 3 will require others to keep the command working in their modified versions of the program. -------
Some projects are licensed under GPL 2 "or, at your option, any later version". A project that is licensed under GPL 2 would require the approval of every contributor to be relicensed under GPL 3. Even a fork to GPL 3 would not be allowed without the consent of everyone involved. A project that is licensed under GPL 2+ can be converted en masse to GPL 3, but not piecemeal. For example, if Drupal is under GPL 2+ then Dries could one day declare "OK, we're now GPL 3+!", and it would be so. He would have to if anyone sent in a patch under GPL 3+, in fact. If he didn't, someone could fork it under GPL 3+ but then the fork could not cross-pollenate with the original Drupal. My reading of RMS' statement (and someone correct *me* if I'm wrong) is that GPL 3 would allow for "unmodifiable" "download the code here" functions, similar to how the GNU Free Documentation License allows for unremovable non-content stuff like colophons <sp>. That's only an option for the developer, though, and not required. That would affect Drupal only if it's currenly licensed under GPL 2+ *and* Dries decided to move to GPL 3. (If it's currently GPL 2, then it's locked on GPL 2 pretty much forever.) I don't know off hand if Drupal is under GPL 2 or GPL 2+, so I don't know which would apply to us. Dries? --Larry Garfield
Please correct me if I am wrong. If existing codes of a project are licensed under GPL 2, and if someone from that project wants to license the codes with GPL 3 that command, EVERY code owner or contributor will need to agree on using the *new* license.
realistically, if at least one ojbects the change, the codes can't be licensed with the new license.
so GPL3 with that command doesn't apply to most of the existing projects. or someone can fork an project and apply the GPL 3 license.
It can be used on any new project though.
On 9/30/05, Karoly Negyesi <karoly@negyesi.net> wrote:
------- Some companies, such as Google, use code covered by GPL to offer their services through the Web. Do you plan to extend GPL 3 copyleft to request code publication in this case too, considering this behavior like a product distribution?
Running a program in a public server is not distribution; it is public use. We're looking at an approach where programs used in this way will have to include a command for the user to download the source for the version that is running.
But this will not apply to all GPL-covered programs, only to programs that already contain such a command. Thus, this change would have no effect on existing software, but developers could activate it in the future.
This is only a tentative plan, because we have not finished studying the matter to be sure it will work.
How would it work?
If you release a program that implements such a command, GPL 3 will require others to keep the command working in their modified versions of the program. -------
Some projects are licensed under GPL 2 "or, at your option, any later version". A project that is licensed under GPL 2 would require the approval of every contributor to be relicensed under GPL 3. Even a fork to GPL 3 would not be allowed without the consent of everyone involved. A project that is licensed under GPL 2+ can be converted en masse to GPL 3, but not piecemeal. For example, if Drupal is under GPL 2+ then Dries could one day declare "OK, we're now GPL 3+!", and it would be so. He would have to if anyone sent in a patch under GPL 3+, in fact. If he didn't, someone could fork it under GPL 3+ but then the fork could not cross-pollenate with the original Drupal. My reading of RMS' statement (and someone correct *me* if I'm wrong) is that GPL 3 would allow for "unmodifiable" "download the code here" functions, similar to how the GNU Free Documentation License allows for unremovable non-content stuff like colophons <sp>. That's only an option for the developer, though, and not required. That would affect Drupal only if it's currenly licensed under GPL 2+ *and* Dries decided to move to GPL 3. (If it's currently GPL 2, then it's locked on GPL 2 pretty much forever.) I don't know off hand if Drupal is under GPL 2 or GPL 2+, so I don't know which would apply to us. Dries? --Larry Garfield
Please correct me if I am wrong. If existing codes of a project are licensed under GPL 2, and if someone from that project wants to license the codes with GPL 3 that command, EVERY code owner or contributor will need to agree on using the *new* license.
realistically, if at least one ojbects the change, the codes can't be licensed with the new license.
so GPL3 with that command doesn't apply to most of the existing projects. or someone can fork an project and apply the GPL 3 license.
It can be used on any new project though.
On 9/30/05, Karoly Negyesi <karoly@negyesi.net> wrote:
------- Some companies, such as Google, use code covered by GPL to offer their services through the Web. Do you plan to extend GPL 3 copyleft to request code publication in this case too, considering this behavior like a product distribution?
Running a program in a public server is not distribution; it is public use. We're looking at an approach where programs used in this way will have to include a command for the user to download the source for the version that is running.
But this will not apply to all GPL-covered programs, only to programs that already contain such a command. Thus, this change would have no effect on existing software, but developers could activate it in the future.
This is only a tentative plan, because we have not finished studying the matter to be sure it will work.
How would it work?
If you release a program that implements such a command, GPL 3 will require others to keep the command working in their modified versions of the program. -------
Some projects are licensed under GPL 2 "or, at your option, any later version". A project that is licensed under GPL 2 would require the approval of every contributor to be relicensed under GPL 3. Even a fork to GPL 3 would not be allowed without the consent of everyone involved. A project that is licensed under GPL 2+ can be converted en masse to GPL 3, but not piecemeal. For example, if Drupal is under GPL 2+ then Dries could one day declare "OK, we're now GPL 3+!", and it would be so. He would have to if anyone sent in a patch under GPL 3+, in fact. If he didn't, someone could fork it under GPL 3+ but then the fork could not cross-pollenate with the original Drupal. My reading of RMS' statement (and someone correct *me* if I'm wrong) is that GPL 3 would allow for "unmodifiable" "download the code here" functions, similar to how the GNU Free Documentation License allows for unremovable non-content stuff like colophons <sp>. That's only an option for the developer, though, and not required. That would affect Drupal only if it's currenly licensed under GPL 2+ *and* Dries decided to move to GPL 3. (If it's currently GPL 2, then it's locked on GPL 2 pretty much forever.) I don't know off hand if Drupal is under GPL 2 or GPL 2+, so I don't know which would apply to us. Dries? --Larry Garfield
Please correct me if I am wrong. If existing codes of a project are licensed under GPL 2, and if someone from that project wants to license the codes with GPL 3 that command, EVERY code owner or contributor will need to agree on using the *new* license.
realistically, if at least one ojbects the change, the codes can't be licensed with the new license.
so GPL3 with that command doesn't apply to most of the existing projects. or someone can fork an project and apply the GPL 3 license.
It can be used on any new project though.
On 9/30/05, Karoly Negyesi <karoly@negyesi.net> wrote:
------- Some companies, such as Google, use code covered by GPL to offer their services through the Web. Do you plan to extend GPL 3 copyleft to request code publication in this case too, considering this behavior like a product distribution?
Running a program in a public server is not distribution; it is public use. We're looking at an approach where programs used in this way will have to include a command for the user to download the source for the version that is running.
But this will not apply to all GPL-covered programs, only to programs that already contain such a command. Thus, this change would have no effect on existing software, but developers could activate it in the future.
This is only a tentative plan, because we have not finished studying the matter to be sure it will work.
How would it work?
If you release a program that implements such a command, GPL 3 will require others to keep the command working in their modified versions of the program. -------
Apologies for the flooding. Squirrelmail was having a hissy fit. :-( On Thursday 06 October 2005 04:08 pm, larry@garfieldtech.com wrote:
Some projects are licensed under GPL 2 "or, at your option, any later version".
<snip> -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 larry@garfieldtech.com ICQ: 6817012 "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
On 06 Oct 2005, at 23:08, larry@garfieldtech.com wrote:
I don't know off hand if Drupal is under GPL 2 or GPL 2+, so I don't know which would apply to us. Dries?
Drupal is GPL 2. What is GPL 2+ anyway? From what I've read, GPL 3 is not going to be available any time soon so this discussion might be premature. -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
I would like to see support for projects in Drupal that licensed under different licenses. For example the new SPAM module is under the BSD license. The new CiviCRM(http://openngo.org) is under AGPL which is being pursued to support emerging open source business models. Anything we could do to support higher quality contributed modules to show the power of the platform would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Kieran On Oct 6, 2005, at 11:47 PM, Dries Buytaert wrote:
On 06 Oct 2005, at 23:08, larry@garfieldtech.com wrote:
I don't know off hand if Drupal is under GPL 2 or GPL 2+, so I don't know which would apply to us. Dries?
Drupal is GPL 2. What is GPL 2+ anyway?
From what I've read, GPL 3 is not going to be available any time soon so this discussion might be premature.
-- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
For example the new SPAM module is under the BSD license. The new CiviCRM(http://openngo.org) is under AGPL which is being pursued to support emerging open source business models.
Never heard of AGPL.
Drupal is GPL 2. What is GPL 2+ anyway?
Shorthand for "This is under GPL 2 pr any later version"
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:04:18 +0200 "Karoly Negyesi" <karoly@negyesi.net> wrote:
For example the new SPAM module is under the BSD license. The new CiviCRM(http://openngo.org) is under AGPL which is being pursued to support emerging open source business models.
Never heard of AGPL.
Affero General Public License http://www.openngo.org/node/13 http://www.openngo.org/faqs/licensing.html -Jeremy
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Kieran Lal wrote:
I would like to see support for projects in Drupal that licensed under different licenses.
My opinion still is that any Drupal modules have to be licensed under GPL compatible licenses.
For example the new SPAM module is under the BSD license. The new
GPL compatible.
CiviCRM(http://openngo.org) is under AGPL which is being pursued to
Not compatible.
support emerging open source business models.
Donald Lobo (the head developer) told me he would dual license the actual module file under GPL + AGPL as of CiviCRM 1.2.
Anything we could do to support higher quality contributed modules to show the power of the platform would be greatly appreciated.
No, not anything. Cheers, Gerhard
Maybe I shouldn't, but... On 10/7/05, Gerhard Killesreiter <killesreiter@physik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
For example the new SPAM module is under the BSD license. The new
GPL compatible.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php I don't see anything that compels sharing of modifications like GPL does. And it's real simple...no place to hide missing meanings. So...what does "GPL compatible" mean?
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Earl Dunovant wrote:
Maybe I shouldn't, but...
On 10/7/05, Gerhard Killesreiter <killesreiter@physik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
For example the new SPAM module is under the BSD license. The new
GPL compatible.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
I don't see anything that compels sharing of modifications like GPL does.
The GPL does that only if you distribute the code. Many people miss that details.
And it's real simple...no place to hide missing meanings.
So...what does "GPL compatible" mean?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible Cheers, Gerhard
participants (12)
-
Dries Buytaert -
Earl Dunovant -
Gerhard Killesreiter -
Kai Mai -
Karoly Negyesi -
Khalid B -
Kieran Lal -
Larry Garfield -
larry＠garfieldtech.com
-
Lists -
Robert Douglass -
Steve Dondley