Re: [Monotone-devel] GPLv3 code in monotone

[Hendrik Boom]

On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 07:42:12AM -0400, Stephen Leake wrote:
> 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+.

Yes, at present the linked monotone binary will have to be released as 
GPLv3.  And the source files, except for src/{unix,win32}/parse_date.cc, 
are GPLv2+.  I see no reason to relicence most of the source files, 
unless we specifically want to forbid anyone to use them within other 
GPLv2 software.  But if we want to permit such reuse, it would be 
gracious to relicense the two exceptions as GPLv2+.

-- hendrik