GPL version for monotone

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

GPL version for monotone

Markus Wanner-2
Stephen,

while COPYING states GPL-2+ as the license for monotone, I just figured
there's exactly two files in the source that state GPL-3+:
src/{unix,win32}/parse_date.cc. You introduced these back in May 2010 in
rev a8147b11, when splitting functionality from dates.cc into these two
platform specific variants.

I realize the has been some discussion regarding switching to GPL-3+
(search the archives for "GPLv3 code in monotone"), but to me the thread
doesn't quite look like an agreement has been reached for a move to
GPL-3+. Maybe that needs to be revisited, now? Stephen, do you want to
pursue a move to GPL-3+, again?

Alternatively, please resolve the ambiguity by clearly allowing
distribution of those files under GPL v2 as well, i.e. change the boiler
plate there to state "GNU GPL version 2.0 or greater", as other source
files still do. Thanks.

[ I'm sorry to bring this up only after the 1.1 release. ]

Regards

Markus


_______________________________________________
Monotone-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel

signature.asc (250 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GPL version for monotone

Stephen Leake-3
Markus Wanner <[hidden email]> writes:

> while COPYING states GPL-2+ as the license for monotone, I just figured
> there's exactly two files in the source that state GPL-3+:
> src/{unix,win32}/parse_date.cc. You introduced these back in May 2010 in
> rev a8147b11, when splitting functionality from dates.cc into these two
> platform specific variants.

Right.

> I realize the has been some discussion regarding switching to GPL-3+
> (search the archives for "GPLv3 code in monotone"), but to me the thread
> doesn't quite look like an agreement has been reached for a move to
> GPL-3+.

Right; it was a mistake to use GPLv3 in that code.

> Maybe that needs to be revisited, now? Stephen, do you want to pursue
> a move to GPL-3+, again?

I'm always in favor of moving to GPLv3, but I don't think anything has
changed in this regard.

> Alternatively, please resolve the ambiguity by clearly allowing
> distribution of those files under GPL v2 as well, i.e. change the boiler
> plate there to state "GNU GPL version 2.0 or greater", as other source
> files still do. Thanks.

Done

--
-- Stephe

_______________________________________________
Monotone-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GPL version for monotone

Markus Wanner-2
On 05/07/2014 09:02 AM, Stephen Leake wrote:
> Markus Wanner <[hidden email]> writes:
>> Alternatively, please resolve the ambiguity by clearly allowing
>> distribution of those files under GPL v2 as well, i.e. change the boiler
>> plate there to state "GNU GPL version 2.0 or greater", as other source
>> files still do. Thanks.
>
> Done

Thanks you, perfect.

I think we can reasonably back-patch that to the 1.1 tree for
distribution, so we don't run into trouble when claiming monotone to be
GPL-2+. I'll have to do that for Debian. (I'm surprised nobody noticed
that for the entire lifetime of 1.0 in Debian...)

>> Maybe that needs to be revisited, now? Stephen, do you want to pursue
>> a move to GPL-3+, again?
>
> I'm always in favor of moving to GPLv3, but I don't think anything has
> changed in this regard.

Well, quite some time has passed since then.

With a release manager's hat on, as well as from the Debian Maintainer
perspective, I'm glad we can now have that discussion independent of the
release process. Thanks again, for quick and easy clarification.

Regards

Markus Wanner



_______________________________________________
Monotone-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel

signature.asc (250 bytes) Download Attachment