Updating project to GPL 3
Dave
license to GPL 3... To be very honest I have very little idea of the
subtleties involved between both licenses and I have a life^W^W^W am a
little too busy right now to dive into it, but I suspect it won't
matter all that much at this point.
Please let me know if you disagree with the license change for some
reason and we'll figure something out.
Cheers everybody!
Austin Matzko
My understanding is that GPL 3-licensed plugins are incompatible with
WordPress's GPL 2 license. See
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html>
Austin Matzko (filosofo)
My understanding is that GPL 3-licensed plugins are incompatible with
Stephan Sokolow
What I actually wanted was simply to make sure that the copying
statements were allowing use under "GPL 2 or later" rather than simply
"GPL 2" so that Spam Karma could be integrated into GPL 3-licensed
projects. (Aside from one or two PHP projects I'm working on, there
are also a few GPL 3 Python projects I have planned which I'd like to
enhance with a Python port of Spam Karma)
On Feb 23, 2:28 pm, "Austin Matzko (filosofo)" <if.webs...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Austin Matzko
<stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I actually wanted was simply to make sure that the copying
> statements were allowing use under "GPL 2 or later" rather than simply
> "GPL 2" so that Spam Karma could be integrated into GPL 3-licensed
> projects. (Aside from one or two PHP projects I'm working on, there
> are also a few GPL 3 Python projects I have planned which I'd like to
> enhance with a Python port of Spam Karma)
In that case I propose we leave the license at GPL 2 and amend the
license note at the top of the plugin file to say GPL 2 or later.
That should allow Stephan and others to branch the code into a GPL 3
version and yet maintain a compatible version for WordPress and other
GPL 2-only projects.
drdave unknowngenius
>
> My understanding is that GPL 3-licensed plugins are incompatible with
> WordPress's GPL 2 license. See
> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html>
>
Ooops, indeed, I vaguely remembered something annoying about GPL 3
and SK2. Thanks Austin for the heads up!
(as an aside, this is a very long standing debate, but I am absolutely
convinced that there is strictly no way that a "plugin framework"
structure such as that of the Wordpress program could in any way
enforce license requirement on its "plugins". For all purposes, SK2
might as well be a standalone PHP script that you choose to run along
with Wordpress. In that respect, WP plugins are somewhat similar to
weak-linked library, if that... the fact that WP plugins use certain
strings of text that happen to be WP "plugin hooks" would very likely
never stand in front of a court as proof that they must conform to
WP's licensing scheme... errm, end of aside.)
Anyway, I reversed the change and switched back to GPL 2: sorry for
being too hasty earlier on.
My understanding is that we can change the license to be "GPL 2 or
later" (whatever that would mean from a licensing perspective, is a
bit blurry to me), but that is not a Google Code option, so it would
have to be done manually in the source.
In conclusion, whatever you guys here decide, is fine by me...
Below is the last email from the person who requested the change (that
whole discussion should probably have been taken here immediately
anyway):
> Actually, it does matter. WordPress has the same "GPL2 but not later"
> problem, so any GPL3 code is legally incompatible with WordPress at
> this point in time. Hence why anyone who wants maximum compatibility
> while still preserving the copyleft principles keeps the "or later"
> provision. It gets very difficult to re-license code as the number of
> contributors grows.
>
> Basically, the license declaration in the sources for a GPL2-licensed
> program (A.K.A. the copying statement) can say one of two things:
>
> 1. "You may use this program under the GNU GPL 2 or, at your
> discretion, a later version"
> 2. "You may use this program under the GNU GPL 2"
>
> When I wrote my initial e-mail, the current sources on Google Code
> specified the GPL 2 without the or latter clause in the comment
> headers.
>
> Python rewrites aside, it's best for SK to just stay with GPL 2 but
> add the "or later" clause so people can also plug SK into GPL 3
> applications written in PHP.
>
> There are simple instructions at
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html which include copying
> statements that only need the phrase "version 3" changed to "version
> 2" and I can prepare some patches to do the change from "GPL 2" to
> "GPL 2 or later" if it'd help, but it might take me a week. I'm a bit
> bogged down with coursework at the moment.
>
> Finally, as for my project, I'll make a note but it may take as much
> as a year or two. My first priority is to complete some personal
> information management tools and I can never be completely sure how
> much free time I'll have.
Xavier Borderie
> statements were allowing use under "GPL 2 or later" rather than simply
> "GPL 2" so that Spam Karma could be integrated into GPL 3-licensed
> projects.
I *think* I already saw such "or later" wordings, but I'm not too sure
if this has any legal binding.
As far as I can understand, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are two incompatible
licences, and therefore it might be better to dual-licence the project
(even though it would look a bit overkill).
That, or you could switch to a more permissive licence, such as the Do
What The Fuck You Want one :)
http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/
--
Xavier Borderie
drdave unknowngenius
> WordPress's GPL 2 license. See
> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html>
>
Ooops, indeed, I vaguely remembered something annoying about GPL 3
Stephan Sokolow
type of dual/tri/n-licensing between GPL 2, GPL 3, and potentially GPL
3.1 or 4 and above if they become necessary.
Xavier Borderie
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060118155841115
http://www.ifross.org/en/what-difference-between-gplv2-and-gplv3
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/107716/licensing-changing-gplv2-licensed-code-into-gplv3-licensed-code
Also, I believe WP itself is using GPLv2 - but I'm not sure this is
something you'll take into account.
-xb.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SK2 GPL Dev" group.
> To post to this group, send email to sk2-g...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sk2-gpl-dev...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sk2-gpl-dev?hl=en.
>
>
--
Xavier Borderie