Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: LICENSE and revbumps
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:17:29
Message-Id: pan.2008.08.27.15.16.56@cox.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] LICENSE and revbumps by Yuri Vasilevski
1 Yuri Vasilevski <yvasilev@g.o> posted
2 20080827093427.36572652@×××××××××××××××××××.mx, excerpted below, on Wed,
3 27 Aug 2008 09:34:27 -0500:
4
5 > As Another example, the user might statically link bits of the exact
6 > same library against a GPL-2 (not a GPL-2 or latter) program, just
7 > because he is misinformed by portage that the program is GPL-2 and then
8 > he gets into a legal problem.
9
10 The original question didn't specify where the license change occurred,
11 upstream, or whether upstream stayed the same, and the Gentoo change was
12 simply correcting an earlier mistake.
13
14 If the change occurred upstream, then the version of the code released as
15 GPLv2 remains released at that, regardless of upstream changes; once
16 released as GPLv2, that can't be revoked (tho GPLv3 or another license
17 could be added), and there's no problem in this case because we are
18 talking that same upstream version according to the question. This is
19 how I read the original question, an upstream change.
20
21 However, if we're correcting a Gentoo mistake on code that was never
22 licensed as we said it was, then a bump should be mandatory, as will be
23 removal of the previously licensed revision ASAP, because that revision
24 was shipped under the wrong license, and the faster that's corrected and
25 we're no longer violating the law, the better.
26
27 In this latter case, I'd argue that the offending revision must be
28 removed immediately, even if the new revision can't be stabilized fast
29 enough and a downgrade or even missing dependency is forced. We had no
30 right to be shipping the code licensed as it was, and if we end up
31 breaking stuff by removing what wasn't ours to ship in the first place,
32 so be it.
33
34 However, if as stated in the original question, the only difference in
35 the build is the license, then as someone else suggested, I believe a
36 straight to stable policy should apply. If it does, then there won't be
37 any breakage since the new revision will be stabilized in in place of and
38 at removal of the old.
39
40 --
41 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
42 "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
43 and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman