Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone

[Stephen Leake]

Thomas Keller <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi!
>
> This is a follow-up on
> <https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=684822>, where I was asked
> to clarify the license of the openSUSE monotone package.
>
> Currently, this is stating GPLv2+, but the reporter needs some
> clarification because we have some GPLv3+ code in the package
> (src/{unix,win32}/parse_date.cc). From the original ticket:
>
> <snip> 
>
> I then answered that the files are used (a) and that it was not an
> accident (c), but I'm unsure about the "derived work" clause. I'm seeing
> the following solutions (ordered by impact):
>
> 1) document in README or somewhere else that parts of the code use
> GPLv3+ and give packagers a hint what license they should use when they
> package monotone
> 2) relicense the mentioned files as GPLv2+
> 3) relicense everything of mtn GPLv3+
>
> Opinions anyone?

I put that there, mostly as a response to Richard Stallman's plea for
all Gnu packages to be upgraded to GPL v3 (yes, I know monotone is not a
Gnu package).

I also raised the issue of upgrading the package generally (I can't find
it in the mailing list archive). There was some objection, but not much
discussion.

All authors have already given permission to use GPLv3, since the other
files are GPLv2+.

I think GPLv3 is a better license; it is clearer, and has better
mechanisms for exceptions (not that we need any).

Hmm. src/boost/* are _not_ GPL; they are "any use, with notice".

similarly, src/netxx/* are not GPL.

There has been some discussion of the issue of multiple licenses in a
package on the Debian policy list. The consensus seems to be that there
is no such thing as "the overall license"; each file has its own
license. That is, the unit of reuse is the file, not the package. They
are working on upgrading the package documentation format to make it
easy to describe what license applies to each file.

I think that discussion applies to source distribution. Since we also
distribute a binary, it must have some single license. I have not seen a
discussion of that.

I'm guessing the monotone binary should be GPLv3, since the GPL v3 file
does not say "or earlier", and the GPLv2+ and non-GPL files are
compatible with GPL v3.

I don't feel strongly either way; if it makes life simpler, I agree to
relicense src/{unix,win32}/parse_date.cc as GPLv2+.

-- 
-- Stephe