1 |
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 6:41 AM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> Historically, all ebuilds in the Gentoo repository were licensed under |
4 |
> GPL-2+. At a later point they were relicensed [1] to GPL-2. See [2] for |
5 |
> a rationale (or absence of it, YMMV). |
6 |
|
7 |
I think the historical policy made sense in its context, which was a |
8 |
world where all copyrights were to be assigned. In that case you can |
9 |
already relicense at will, so you still have flexibility, but by |
10 |
keeping it pinned at one version you don't get pulled into something |
11 |
by somebody else that you didn't intend. |
12 |
|
13 |
Now, over time the whole assignment thing became fuzzier and I don't |
14 |
really want to get into a largely-moot debate at this point over how |
15 |
effective those assignments were at various points in time. |
16 |
|
17 |
Today we are in a world where our intent isn't for the default to |
18 |
involve assignment, and so the v2-only licenses create (IMO) more |
19 |
problems than they prevent. |
20 |
|
21 |
> On the other hand, we would presumably never achieve a complete |
22 |
> transition to GPL-2+, so we would have ebuilds with either GPL variant |
23 |
> in the tree. Not sure how big an issue that would be. Updating ebuilds |
24 |
> wouldn't be a problem (as the old header would stay), but devs would |
25 |
> have to spend attention to the header when copying code from one ebuild |
26 |
> to another. |
27 |
|
28 |
Devs already have to be careful about copying code into ebuilds that |
29 |
go into our repo. Somebody could attach an ebuild to a bug and stick |
30 |
"Copyright Joe Smith all rights reserved" at the top of it. |
31 |
|
32 |
I think it would make sense to have a call for Devs to voluntarily |
33 |
report in and give permission for their contributions to be licensed |
34 |
v2+ with no change in copyright ownership and see what happens. I |
35 |
wouldn't be surprised if we could relicense 80-90% of the tree |
36 |
quickly. If that happens then we could just require it for new |
37 |
contributions (if we wanted to), and then over time the problem would |
38 |
just go away, just like an old EAPI. |
39 |
|
40 |
We could also stick warnings in ebuild comments like "# Warning |
41 |
v2-only ebuild - do not copy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" and maybe copy it |
42 |
every 20 lines if we wanted to be super-paranoid. |
43 |
|
44 |
I do agree with the general argument that much of this code isn't |
45 |
really subject to copyright. We could just do both an opt-in and |
46 |
opt-out approach to this. Have the opt-in so that we get as much |
47 |
explicit approval as we can. Also do an opt-out with a prominent |
48 |
announcement like, "hey, we're about to adopt GPL v2+ for all our |
49 |
ebuilds so if you think you have contributions that are non-trivial |
50 |
and want to object to those contributions being relicensed please let |
51 |
us know." It isn't an airtight defense, but it isn't entirely |
52 |
unreasonable either. |
53 |
|
54 |
Or we could just see how many fish we catch with a very conservative |
55 |
opt-in approach and go from there. We might not need to even consider |
56 |
the risk of an opt-out approach. |
57 |
|
58 |
-- |
59 |
Rich |