From jan.klepek at brandforge.sk Fri Sep 25 09:50:13 2009 From: jan.klepek at brandforge.sk (jan.klepek at brandforge.sk) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:50:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ditz-talk] licensing Message-ID: <41338.15.195.185.83.1253886613.squirrel@www.brandforge.sk> Hi, I'm working on ditz package for fedora/rhel. However I have found following issues with licensing: Trollop license (GPLv2) is not compatible with Ditz license (GPLv3+). So from Licensing point of view, it needs explicit statement in README or in Code that linking to trollop library is allowed. Thanks, Best Regards, Jan Klepek From wmorgan-ditz at masanjin.net Sun Sep 27 13:48:14 2009 From: wmorgan-ditz at masanjin.net (William Morgan) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:48:14 -0700 Subject: [ditz-talk] licensing In-Reply-To: <41338.15.195.185.83.1253886613.squirrel@www.brandforge.sk> References: <41338.15.195.185.83.1253886613.squirrel@www.brandforge.sk> Message-ID: <1254073624-sup-9171@masanjin.net> Reformatted excerpts from jan.klepek's message of 2009-09-25: > Trollop license (GPLv2) is not compatible with Ditz license (GPLv3+). > So from Licensing point of view, it needs explicit statement in README > or in Code that linking to trollop library is allowed. Trollop is licensed "under the same terms as Ruby itself". Is that sufficient for GPLv3 compatibility? If not, I will add an explicit clause to Trollop. -- William From jan.klepek at brandforge.sk Sun Sep 27 14:39:22 2009 From: jan.klepek at brandforge.sk (Jan Klepek) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:39:22 +0200 Subject: [ditz-talk] licensing In-Reply-To: <1254073624-sup-9171@masanjin.net> References: <41338.15.195.185.83.1253886613.squirrel@www.brandforge.sk> <1254073624-sup-9171@masanjin.net> Message-ID: <1254076762.2617.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2009-09-27 at 10:48 -0700, William Morgan wrote: > Reformatted excerpts from jan.klepek's message of 2009-09-25: > > Trollop license (GPLv2) is not compatible with Ditz license (GPLv3+). > > So from Licensing point of view, it needs explicit statement in README > > or in Code that linking to trollop library is allowed. > > Trollop is licensed "under the same terms as Ruby itself". Is that > sufficient for GPLv3 compatibility? If not, I will add an explicit > clause to Trollop. unfortunately not :/ in trollop.rb: ## License:: GNU GPL version 2 and GPLv3(and later) is not compatible with GPLv2. If it is possible to add explicit clause for Trollop, it would be great and help to get ditz into Fedora. Could you please let me know where I could later find this clause? Thanks, Regards, Jan Klepek From wmorgan-ditz at masanjin.net Wed Sep 30 12:39:20 2009 From: wmorgan-ditz at masanjin.net (William Morgan) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:39:20 -0700 Subject: [ditz-talk] licensing In-Reply-To: <1254076762.2617.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <41338.15.195.185.83.1253886613.squirrel@www.brandforge.sk> <1254073624-sup-9171@masanjin.net> <1254076762.2617.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1254327817-sup-6897@masanjin.net> Reformatted excerpts from Jan Klepek's message of 2009-09-27: > unfortunately not :/ > in trollop.rb: > ## License:: GNU GPL version 2 > and GPLv3(and later) is not compatible with GPLv2. > > If it is possible to add explicit clause for Trollop, it would be great > and help to get ditz into Fedora. Could you please let me know where I > could later find this clause? I'm about to release a new version of Trollop, and I'm happy to add such a clause. However, the *actual* license of Trollop, despite what trollop.rb says, is what's in the README.txt: "Trollop is distributed under the same terms as Ruby". Ruby is distributed under GPL v2 *or* a bunch of special clauses: http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt. So based on whether that license is acceptable to GPLv3 or not, I will update the readme to have an explicit clause for ditz or not. And either way, I will update trollop.rb to match the readme. Hope I'm not being overly difficult. :) -- William From jan.klepek at brandforge.sk Wed Sep 30 13:01:27 2009 From: jan.klepek at brandforge.sk (Jan Klepek) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:01:27 +0200 Subject: [ditz-talk] licensing In-Reply-To: <1254327817-sup-6897@masanjin.net> References: <41338.15.195.185.83.1253886613.squirrel@www.brandforge.sk> <1254073624-sup-9171@masanjin.net> <1254076762.2617.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1254327817-sup-6897@masanjin.net> Message-ID: <1254330087.2502.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 09:39 -0700, William Morgan wrote: > Reformatted excerpts from Jan Klepek's message of 2009-09-27: > > unfortunately not :/ > > in trollop.rb: > > ## License:: GNU GPL version 2 > > and GPLv3(and later) is not compatible with GPLv2. > > > > If it is possible to add explicit clause for Trollop, it would be great > > and help to get ditz into Fedora. Could you please let me know where I > > could later find this clause? > > I'm about to release a new version of Trollop, and I'm happy to add such > a clause. > > However, the *actual* license of Trollop, despite what trollop.rb says, > is what's in the README.txt: "Trollop is distributed under the same > terms as Ruby". Ruby is distributed under GPL v2 *or* a bunch of special > clauses: http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/LICENSE.txt. > > So based on whether that license is acceptable to GPLv3 or not, I will > update the readme to have an explicit clause for ditz or not. And either > way, I will update trollop.rb to match the readme. > > Hope I'm not being overly difficult. :) Hi, Thanks, that is great. The issue is not in trollop (licensing of trollop is ok). The clause will be needed in ditz, as ditz is requiring trollop. As ditz needs to say "I approve linking/requiring of myself with Trollop" or something like that. I have probably wrote it wrong way, sorry for confusion :/ Regards, Jan From wmorgan-ditz at masanjin.net Wed Sep 30 14:03:04 2009 From: wmorgan-ditz at masanjin.net (William Morgan) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:03:04 -0700 Subject: [ditz-talk] licensing In-Reply-To: <1254330087.2502.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <41338.15.195.185.83.1253886613.squirrel@www.brandforge.sk> <1254073624-sup-9171@masanjin.net> <1254076762.2617.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1254327817-sup-6897@masanjin.net> <1254330087.2502.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1254333744-sup-7629@masanjin.net> Reformatted excerpts from Jan Klepek's message of 2009-09-30: > The issue is not in trollop (licensing of trollop is ok). The clause > will be needed in ditz, as ditz is requiring trollop. As ditz needs to > say "I approve linking/requiring of myself with Trollop" or something > like that. I have probably wrote it wrong way, sorry for confusion :/ I have updated README.txt in git master. -- William