Hello, I've created a rpm package for fedora. The review request is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844173 It seems that only evil.el contains license information. This may be a problem for sources redistribution. Could you put license information to all source files, and add the whole license in a separated file? Thanks, Sébastien Willmann
On 2012-07-30, Sébastien Willmann <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
I've created a rpm package for fedora. The review request is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D844173
It seems that only evil.el contains license information. This may be a problem for sources redistribution. Could you put license information to all source files, and add the whole license in a separated file?
I've prepared the changes, but one question arises. Evil now contains some code snippets stolen from other sources, usually from GNU Emacs itself (I know this because I've been the thief ;)). These files are usually distributed under GPLv3 whereas Evil still has GPLv2. For correctness we should therefore upgrade the licensing to GPLv3, too. Is there any problem with this (I ask all contributors)? (Otherwise I'll simple change the "2" to a "3" in the license comments). Frank
On 2012-07-30 15:13 +0200, Frank Fischer wrote:
Evil now contains some code snippets stolen from other sources, usually from GNU Emacs itself (I know this because I've been the thief ;)). These files are usually distributed under GPLv3 whereas Evil still has GPLv2. For correctness we should therefore upgrade the licensing to GPLv3, too.
The following article from 2007 explains how and why one should upgrade from GPLv2 to GPLv3: http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html As I understand it, using GPLv3 code in a program means that the whole code base must be upgraded to GPLv3: "When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is no legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a single program. This is because both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft licenses: each of them says, 'If you include code under this license in a larger program, the larger program must be under this license too.' There is no way to make them compatible. We could add a GPLv2-compatibility clause to GPLv3, but it wouldn't do the job, because GPLv2 would need a similar clause." However, this shouldn't pose any problems for packaging: "Fortunately, license incompatibility only matters when you want to link, merge or combine code from two different programs into a single program. There is no problem in having GPLv3-covered and GPLv2-covered programs side by side in an operating system. For instance, the TeX license and the Apache license are incompatible with GPLv2, but that doesn't stop us from running TeX and Apache in the same system with Linux, Bash and GCC. This is because they are all separate programs. Likewise, if Bash and GCC move to GPLv3, while Linux remains under GPLv2, there is no conflict."
Is there any problem with this (I ask all contributors)? (Otherwise I'll simple change the "2" to a "3" in the license comments).
I think we should upgrade to GPLv3 right away. -- Vegard
On 2012-07-31, Vegard Øye <[email protected]> wrote:
I think we should upgrade to GPLv3 right away.
Ok, I've added the license information in 5f21f9899. Hope this is okay. Frank
Le Wed, 1 Aug 2012 07:13:10 +0000 (UTC), Frank Fischer <[email protected]> a écrit :
On 2012-07-31, Vegard Øye <[email protected]> wrote:
I think we should upgrade to GPLv3 right away.
Ok, I've added the license information in 5f21f9899.
Hope this is okay.
Frank
_______________________________________________ implementations-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/implementations-list
That's ok for me, thanks ! Sébastien Willmann
participants (3)
-
Frank Fischer -
Sébastien Willmann -
Vegard Øye