1 |
[2020-01-30 08:19:08-0500] Rich Freeman: |
2 |
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 6:20 AM Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier |
3 |
> <contact@×××××××××.me> wrote: |
4 |
> > [2020-01-27 12:41:26+0100] Ulrich Mueller: |
5 |
> > > So, the question is, should we allow ebuilds |
6 |
> > > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, v2 or later |
7 |
> > > in the repository, or should we even encourage it for new ebuilds? |
8 |
> > > |
9 |
> > > I have somewhat mixed feelings about this. One the one hand, I think |
10 |
> > > that GPL-2+ should generally be preferred because it offers better |
11 |
> > > compatibility. For example, the compatibility clause in CC-BY-SA-4.0 |
12 |
> > > won't work with GPL-2. |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > Is there another reason for GPL-2+ than just compatibility? |
15 |
> > Because I quite find the "or later" thing to be quite a scary one as |
16 |
> > whatever will come up next as a GPL will become applicable and it feels |
17 |
> > quite weird to me to have a license that can evolve to whatever |
18 |
> > license over time. |
19 |
|
20 |
> Really the main threat (IMO) is that the code could be de-copylefted. |
21 |
> They could make GPL v4 a copy of the BSD license, and now anything |
22 |
> that was v2+ is effectively BSD and can be used in non-FOSS software |
23 |
> without issue. I guess that isn't any worse than the previous case of |
24 |
> it instead being merged into some other v4 variant that you can access |
25 |
> the source for but prefer to avoid because of something else in the |
26 |
> license, except now you might not see the code at all. |
27 |
|
28 |
Yeah, I quite share this opinion/view, with also the scary wonder of |
29 |
who can author a GPL-4 license as there doesn't seems to be any |
30 |
restriction for this in the license, just a "or later". |
31 |
|
32 |
> Another solution to this problem is the FLA - which is something we've |
33 |
> talked about but shelved until we've sorted out some of our other |
34 |
> copyright issues which were thorny enough. Perhaps we could consider |
35 |
> taking that up again. Without getting into the details it is a bit |
36 |
> like a copyleft-style copyright assignment, which isn't actually an |
37 |
> assignment. We envisoned it being voluntary and would allow any |
38 |
> contributor to give the Foundation the authority to relicense their |
39 |
> contributions, with a number of restrictions, like the new license |
40 |
> being FOSS. I'd have to dig up the latest version and take a look at |
41 |
> it again. Basically instead of trusting the FSF you'd be trusting the |
42 |
> Foundation instead, but there are some limitations on what they'd be |
43 |
> allowed to do, and if they violate those limitations the agreement |
44 |
> would be canceled and the rights would revert back to whatever was on |
45 |
> the original contribution, which would probably be whatever the author |
46 |
> originally wanted. That said, I'm not sure it really provides a whole |
47 |
> lot more protection over what happens except for the fact that |
48 |
> Foundation members have more say in how the Foundation operations than |
49 |
> the FSF, if only because the number of people allowed to vote are |
50 |
> limited to a relatively small pool Gentoo contributors, at least |
51 |
> compared to the entire FOSS community. |
52 |
|
53 |
I guess the FLA would be really interesting to have to get the quite |
54 |
useful flexibility of relicensing but keeping it to Gentoo Foundation |
55 |
to avoid giving this flexibility to everyone. |
56 |
|
57 |
Maybe it could for now be a simple agreement on putting your code to |
58 |
the Gentoo Foundation under the GPL-2+ but it would be published under |
59 |
the GPL-{2,3,…}? |