is GPL2 or later enough for having a package in ELPA?

is GPL2 or later enough for having a package in ELPA?

[Uwe Brauer]

Hi 

A year or so ago, I asked/proposed to move MATLAB emacs from MELPA to
ELPA. RMS approved, but the move got a bit stuck since some signatures
of the FSF papers are missing.

I will try to sort it out in the coming weeks but there is one thing I
forgot.

Is it ok if all lisp files are under GLP 2 or later?

The issue GLP 2 or later vs GPL 3 always confuses me, sorry

Regards

Uwe Brauer 

-- 
Warning: Content may be disturbing to some audiences
I strongly condemn Putin's war of aggression against the Ukraine.
I support to deliver weapons to Ukraine's military. 
I support the NATO membership of the Ukraine.
I support the EU membership of the Ukraine. 
https://addons.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/addon/gmail-conversation-view/

Re: is GPL2 or later enough for having a package in ELPA?

[Yuchen Pei]

On Sat 2023-07-08 17:51:59 +0200, Uwe Brauer wrote:

> Hi 
>
> A year or so ago, I asked/proposed to move MATLAB emacs from MELPA to
> ELPA. RMS approved, but the move got a bit stuck since some signatures
> of the FSF papers are missing.
>
> I will try to sort it out in the coming weeks but there is one thing I
> forgot.
>
> Is it ok if all lisp files are under GLP 2 or later?

My *speculation*: what happens to packages licensed under GPLv3+ if/when
GPLv4 is published? I suspect they will either remain GPLv3+, or FSF,
the copyright holder of all ELPA packages will bump the license version.
Either way, applying this line of reasoning, package under GPLv2+ should
be ok to include once the copyright assignment is done.

Best,
Yuchen

-- 
PGP Key: 47F9 D050 1E11 8879 9040  4941 2126 7E93 EF86 DFD0
          <https://ypei.org/assets/ypei-pubkey.txt>

Re: is GPL2 or later enough for having a package in ELPA?

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > Is it ok if all lisp files are under GLP 2 or later?

That question has multiple possible meanings.  But each meaning
results in the conclusion that we could do what we need to do.

1, If we get the programs listing GNU GPL 2 or later as the license,
we can change them to say GPL 3 or later, which is simply dropping the
GPL 2 option.  Anyone can do that.

2. If we get copyright assignments for that code, which we would want
in order to put them in GNU ELPA, we can relicense them.  We would
relicense them to GPL 3 or later.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Re: is GPL2 or later enough for having a package in ELPA?

[Uwe Brauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2157 bytes --]

>>> "RS" == Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

>> Is it ok if all lisp files are under GLP 2 or later?

> That question has multiple possible meanings.  But each meaning
> results in the conclusion that we could do what we need to do.

> 1, If we get the programs listing GNU GPL 2 or later as the license,
> we can change them to say GPL 3 or later, which is simply dropping the
> GPL 2 option.  Anyone can do that.

> 2. If we get copyright assignments for that code, which we would want
> in order to put them in GNU ELPA, we can relicense them.  We would
> relicense them to GPL 3 or later.


Thanks, a couple of more question, if you don't mind:

    1. Does GPL 2 or *later* mean:

       a. GPL 2 and all version of that License
          that were released  *before* GPL 2?. That seems to me the most
          logical interpretation.

       b. Or does it mean: GPL 2 and all versions that will be released,
          *after* the release of GPL 2? That seems like a blank check to
          me.

    2. I searched all lisp files: some have GPL 3+ some have GPL2+.
       Is this ok, or need all files to be under the same license?

    3. The person form Debian suggested to have a LICENSE file in the
       directory specifying the license for all files in
       directories/subdirectories. Is this enough, or need all files to
       be listed in that LICENSE file?

Sorry, maybe this is all elementary, but I admit I never really paid much
attention to these details for GPL (any version seemed to be fine)

regards


-- 
Warning: Content may be disturbing to some audiences
I strongly condemn Putin's war of aggression against the Ukraine.
I support to deliver weapons to Ukraine's military. 
I support the NATO membership of the Ukraine.
I support the EU membership of the Ukraine. 
https://addons.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/addon/gmail-conversation-view/

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5673 bytes --]

Re: is GPL2 or later enough for having a package in ELPA?

[Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1509 bytes --]


Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> writes:
> Thanks, a couple of more question, if you don't mind:
>
>     1. Does GPL 2 or *later* mean:
>
>        a. GPL 2 and all version of that License
>           that were released  *before* GPL 2?. That seems to me the most
>           logical interpretation.
>
>        b. Or does it mean: GPL 2 and all versions that will be released,
>           *after* the release of GPL 2? That seems like a blank check to
>           me.

this was discussed during the drafting of GPLv3 a lot: a later version
means a license released after GPL 2, but only if it is similar in
spirit to the license (that’s written in the GPLv2 and GPLv3).

So no blanket permission. For any future GPL the FSF will have to make
sure that it’s similar in spirit, to GPL v2 and GPL v3, otherwise using
old code under these new licenses would risk legal attacks, and then no
one in their right mind would use those licenses.

>     2. I searched all lisp files: some have GPL 3+ some have GPL2+.
>        Is this ok, or need all files to be under the same license?

GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ are (upwards) compatible. If you have GPLv3+ files, then
the project as a whole must be GPLv3+ (or GPLv3, but please don’t leave
out the "or later", that creates a world of pain if you want to use the
later version at some point — and if history is a teacher, you will want
to).

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein,
ohne es zu merken.
draketo.de

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1125 bytes --]

Re: is GPL2 or later enough for having a package in ELPA?

[Uwe Brauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1220 bytes --]


> Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> writes:

> this was discussed during the drafting of GPLv3 a lot: a later version
> means a license released after GPL 2, but only if it is similar in
> spirit to the license (that’s written in the GPLv2 and GPLv3).

> So no blanket permission. For any future GPL the FSF will have to make
> sure that it’s similar in spirit, to GPL v2 and GPL v3, otherwise using
> old code under these new licenses would risk legal attacks, and then no
> one in their right mind would use those licenses.


> GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ are (upwards) compatible. If you have GPLv3+ files, then
> the project as a whole must be GPLv3+ (or GPLv3, but please don’t leave
> out the "or later", that creates a world of pain if you want to use the
> later version at some point — and if history is a teacher, you will want
> to).

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I usually have the «+» always included.
Just to make sure, to have a LICENSE file in the main directory that
states all files (without specifying them) are under GPL3+ is not
enough.

Ah, and another thing I just found out a few files don't even have a
license included, that is why I thought  a LICENSE could come in handy. 

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5673 bytes --]

Re: is GPL2 or later enough for having a package in ELPA?

[Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 790 bytes --]


Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> writes:

> Ah, and another thing I just found out a few files don't even have a
> license included, that is why I thought  a LICENSE could come in handy. 

In case of doubt, a LICENSE file or a COPYING file is useful. A line in
the readme has a similar effect: they make sure that contributions
without a license in the file are understood to be under the license
given.

It is safer to have a license header in the files, but if it comes to
it, a court would have to decide, and they can know common sense.

But I am not a lawyer so I prefer to be on the safe side and just
include a COPYING file, a line in the readme, and licensing headers.

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein,
ohne es zu merken.
draketo.de

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1125 bytes --]

Re: is GPL2 or later enough for having a package in ELPA?

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > > Ah, and another thing I just found out a few files don't even have a
  > > license included, that is why I thought  a LICENSE could come in handy. 

  > In case of doubt, a LICENSE file or a COPYING file is useful. A line in
  > the readme has a similar effect: they make sure that contributions
  > without a license in the file are understood to be under the license
  > given.

I need to correct some misunderstandings here,

In GNU Project practice, we put a copy of the license text into a file
called `COPYING'.  (Look at Emacs itself for an example.)  Some people
do something similar but call the file `LICENSE'. The file's name is
not crucial, but if you call it `LICENSE', or `FOOBAR', make sure the
program elsewhere refers to it by the right name.

It is necessary for the program to contain a copy of the license, but
including a copy somewhere is NOT the same thing as releasing code
under that licene.  The latter establishes a relationship between the
code (in source files) and the license (in `COPYING' or wherever).

We establish this relation with a license notice.  It says, more or
less, "This code is released under the GNU GPL, version 3 or later --
see the file `COPYING'."  It has a few more lines for legal reasons.
Please use the standard version!

Usually we put the license notice at the start of the source file, but
it can be in other places.  To state this in README is valid, but
there is a drawback: the file may get separated from that README and
then it won't be clear what license the file carries.

Putting a package into GNU ELPA requires copyright assignment.  Uwe,
have you got us copyright assignments for all the material in the
package?

If we have that, we don't need to worry about the details of how the
current code deals with copyright and licenses.  The FSF is now the
copyright holder, so we can and will fix all such details on behalf of
the FSF.  That is what we normally do.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Re: is GPL2 or later enough for having a package in ELPA?

[Uwe Brauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3114 bytes --]

>>> "RS" == Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

>> > Ah, and another thing I just found out a few files don't even have a
>> > license included, that is why I thought  a LICENSE could come in handy. 

>> In case of doubt, a LICENSE file or a COPYING file is useful. A line in
>> the readme has a similar effect: they make sure that contributions
>> without a license in the file are understood to be under the license
>> given.

> I need to correct some misunderstandings here,

> In GNU Project practice, we put a copy of the license text into a file
> called `COPYING'.  (Look at Emacs itself for an example.)  Some people
> do something similar but call the file `LICENSE'. The file's name is
> not crucial, but if you call it `LICENSE', or `FOOBAR', make sure the
> program elsewhere refers to it by the right name.

> It is necessary for the program to contain a copy of the license, but
> including a copy somewhere is NOT the same thing as releasing code
> under that licene.  The latter establishes a relationship between the
> code (in source files) and the license (in `COPYING' or wherever).

> We establish this relation with a license notice.  It says, more or
> less, "This code is released under the GNU GPL, version 3 or later --
> see the file `COPYING'."  It has a few more lines for legal reasons.
> Please use the standard version!

> Usually we put the license notice at the start of the source file, but
> it can be in other places.  To state this in README is valid, but
> there is a drawback: the file may get separated from that README and
> then it won't be clear what license the file carries.


Ok thanks for this clarification. So to sum it up, the safest practise
is to have a LICENSE file *and* a LICENSE header in each source file?


> Putting a package into GNU ELPA requires copyright assignment.  Uwe,
> have you got us copyright assignments for all the material in the
> package?

Well almost, the main authors/maintainers did sign and most of the
others (the package started in 1992) also there are two or three cases
that are doubtful, but unfortunately last year my workload did not allow
me to finish the task and that is why I hope in this month I can.

The reason I brought this  subject up here, again, was motivated by a recent
email from a person involved in Debian. 

So to sum it up, I will make sure that all files are under GPLv3+,
give the Debian person my ok, and then hopefully get all the signatures
needed, to put in ELPA.

-- 
Warning: Content may be disturbing to some audiences
I strongly condemn Putin's war of aggression against the Ukraine.
I support to deliver weapons to Ukraine's military. 
I support the NATO membership of the Ukraine.
I support the EU membership of the Ukraine. 
https://addons.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/addon/gmail-conversation-view/

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5673 bytes --]

Re: is GPL2 or later enough for having a package in ELPA?

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > Ok thanks for this clarification. So to sum it up, the safest practise
  > is to have a LICENSE file *and* a LICENSE header in each source file?

I am not sure what that means.  What would you put in the LICENSE file?
(When you say "a LICENSE header", I think you mean a license notice.)

Normally we have a file COPYING which contains only a copy of the GNU
GPL version 3, and each file has a license notice.

Each file also has a copyright notice in the name of the Free Software
Foundation.

  > So to sum it up, I will make sure that all files are under GPLv3+,
  > give the Debian person my ok, and then hopefully get all the signatures
  > needed, to put in ELPA.

Thank you for doing this job.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)

Re: is GPL2 or later enough for having a package in ELPA?

[Uwe Brauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1795 bytes --]

>>> "RS" == Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

>> Ok thanks for this clarification. So to sum it up, the safest practise
>> is to have a LICENSE file *and* a LICENSE header in each source file?

> I am not sure what that means.  What would you put in the LICENSE file?
> (When you say "a LICENSE header", I think you mean a license notice.)

> Normally we have a file COPYING which contains only a copy of the GNU
> GPL version 3, and each file has a license notice.

That is what I was referring to. The Debian person who contacted me,
asked me whether it would be possible to have a LICENSE file in the
package. So I simply thought of using the content of the COPYING file
and call it LICENSE. Is this a problem?

Shall I stick to  the name COPYING, or even,  shall I have the file under two
different names?

> Each file also has a copyright notice in the name of the Free Software
> Foundation.

>> So to sum it up, I will make sure that all files are under GPLv3+,
>> give the Debian person my ok, and then hopefully get all the signatures
>> needed, to put in ELPA.

> Thank you for doing this job.

My pleasure, anything that makes emacs more popular is worth the effort.


-- 
Warning: Content may be disturbing to some audiences
I strongly condemn Putin's war of aggression against the Ukraine.
I support to deliver weapons to Ukraine's military. 
I support the NATO membership of the Ukraine.
I support the EU membership of the Ukraine. 
https://addons.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/addon/gmail-conversation-view/

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5673 bytes --]

Re: is GPL2 or later enough for having a package in ELPA?

[Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1240 bytes --]


Uwe Brauer <oub@mat.ucm.es> writes:

>>>> "RS" == Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
>> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
>> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
>>> Ok thanks for this clarification. So to sum it up, the safest practise
>>> is to have a LICENSE file *and* a LICENSE header in each source file?
>
>> I am not sure what that means.  What would you put in the LICENSE file?
>> (When you say "a LICENSE header", I think you mean a license notice.)
>
>> Normally we have a file COPYING which contains only a copy of the GNU
>> GPL version 3, and each file has a license notice.
>
> That is what I was referring to. The Debian person who contacted me,
> asked me whether it would be possible to have a LICENSE file in the
> package. So I simply thought of using the content of the COPYING file
> and call it LICENSE. Is this a problem?

That’s not a problem, no.

> My pleasure, anything that makes emacs more popular is worth the effort.

♡

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein,
ohne es zu merken.
draketo.de

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1125 bytes --]

Re: is GPL2 or later enough for having a package in ELPA?

[Richard Stallman]

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

  > > That is what I was referring to. The Debian person who contacted me,
  > > asked me whether it would be possible to have a LICENSE file in the
  > > package. So I simply thought of using the content of the COPYING file
  > > and call it LICENSE. Is this a problem?

  > That’s not a problem, no.

Depending on the details of what that means, it might be ok for making
a program free independent of the GNU Project.

But here we want something more specific: we want to make it part of Emacs.
Since Emacs is FSF copyrighted, we want these files to handle the matter
just like the other source files of Emacs.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)