Fix the reducelcs license

Fix the reducelcs license

[contact.ng0]

If I am not wrong: When no "Version 3 only" is specified, it is always "and later".

[PATCH] gnu: reducelcs: Correct license.

[contact.ng0]

From: ng0 <contact.ng0@cryptolab.net>

* gnu/packages/maths.scm (reducelcs)[license]: No explicit "Version 3 only"
is specified so the license must be GPL3+.
---
 gnu/packages/maths.scm | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gnu/packages/maths.scm b/gnu/packages/maths.scm
index 11b81814a..ddea201d1 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/maths.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/maths.scm
@@ -2939,5 +2939,4 @@ instruction sets.  Thus, an application written with Vc can be compiled for:
 algorithm for LCS.  It is a fast program to compute the approximate
 Longest Commons Subsequence of a set of strings.")
       (home-page "https://github.com/gdv/Reduce-Expand-for-LCS")
-      ;; The source specifies no "and later" of GPL3.
-      (license license:gpl3))))
+      (license license:gpl3+))))
-- 
2.11.0

Re: Fix the reducelcs license

[Kei Kebreau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 333 bytes --]

contact.ng0@cryptolab.net writes:

> If I am not wrong: When no "Version 3 only" is specified, it is always
> "and later".

Is there text in the GPL3 that says this? I was under the impression
that the "or any later version" clause had to be specified
explicitly. It doesn't help that there aren't any file headers to clear
this up.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

Re: Fix the reducelcs license

[Marius Bakke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 762 bytes --]

Kei Kebreau <kei@openmailbox.org> writes:

> contact.ng0@cryptolab.net writes:
>
>> If I am not wrong: When no "Version 3 only" is specified, it is always
>> "and later".
>
> Is there text in the GPL3 that says this? I was under the impression
> that the "or any later version" clause had to be specified
> explicitly. It doesn't help that there aren't any file headers to clear
> this up.

My understanding is that downstream users are free to use the "or later"
clause if nothing else is specified. Say, if you copy parts of GPL3 code
with no "or later" headers into your GPL3+ code.

So distros need to distinguish the cases that are explicitly not "or any
later version", but not impose other restrictions on the users.

If that makes sense. But IANAL etc..

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

Re: Fix the reducelcs license

[ng0]

Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> writes:

> Kei Kebreau <kei@openmailbox.org> writes:
>
>> contact.ng0@cryptolab.net writes:
>>
>>> If I am not wrong: When no "Version 3 only" is specified, it is always
>>> "and later".
>>
>> Is there text in the GPL3 that says this? I was under the impression
>> that the "or any later version" clause had to be specified
>> explicitly. It doesn't help that there aren't any file headers to clear
>> this up.
>
> My understanding is that downstream users are free to use the "or later"
> clause if nothing else is specified. Say, if you copy parts of GPL3 code
> with no "or later" headers into your GPL3+ code.
>
> So distros need to distinguish the cases that are explicitly not "or any
> later version", but not impose other restrictions on the users.
>
> If that makes sense. But IANAL etc..

Okay, this makes sense.

I will mark the patch as done, doesn't need to be applied.

Thanks!
-- 
ng0 -- https://www.inventati.org/patternsinthechaos/

Re: Fix the reducelcs license

[Ludovic Courtès]

Kei Kebreau <kei@openmailbox.org> skribis:

> contact.ng0@cryptolab.net writes:
>
>> If I am not wrong: When no "Version 3 only" is specified, it is always
>> "and later".
>
> Is there text in the GPL3 that says this? I was under the impression
> that the "or any later version" clause had to be specified
> explicitly.

No it’s the opposite.

Specifically, from Section 14 of GPLv3:

  If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General
  Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free
  Software Foundation.

In Guix we encode this as ‘gpl3+’.

So the rule is: always put ‘+’ unless the source code headers or some
other prominent file restricts to a specific version of the license.

Ludo’.

Re: Fix the reducelcs license

[ng0]

Ludovic Courtès writes:

> Kei Kebreau <kei@openmailbox.org> skribis:
>
>> contact.ng0@cryptolab.net writes:
>>
>>> If I am not wrong: When no "Version 3 only" is specified, it is always
>>> "and later".
>>
>> Is there text in the GPL3 that says this? I was under the impression
>> that the "or any later version" clause had to be specified
>> explicitly.
>
> No it’s the opposite.
>
> Specifically, from Section 14 of GPLv3:
>
>   If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General
>   Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free
>   Software Foundation.
>
> In Guix we encode this as ‘gpl3+’.
>
> So the rule is: always put ‘+’ unless the source code headers or some
> other prominent file restricts to a specific version of the license.
>
> Ludo’.

Ah, thanks for the explanation. I will save this somewhere.

So the patch I've sent preceding this small discussion should
still be applied.
-- 
ng0 . https://www.inventati.org/patternsinthechaos/

Re: Fix the reducelcs license

[Kei Kebreau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1131 bytes --]

"ng0" <contact.ng0@cryptolab.net> writes:

> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
>> Kei Kebreau <kei@openmailbox.org> skribis:
>>
>>> contact.ng0@cryptolab.net writes:
>>>
>>>> If I am not wrong: When no "Version 3 only" is specified, it is always
>>>> "and later".
>>>
>>> Is there text in the GPL3 that says this? I was under the impression
>>> that the "or any later version" clause had to be specified
>>> explicitly.
>>
>> No it’s the opposite.
>>
>> Specifically, from Section 14 of GPLv3:
>>
>>   If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General
>>   Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free
>>   Software Foundation.
>>
>> In Guix we encode this as ‘gpl3+’.
>>
>> So the rule is: always put ‘+’ unless the source code headers or some
>> other prominent file restricts to a specific version of the license.
>>
>> Ludo’.
>
> Ah, thanks for the explanation. I will save this somewhere.
>
> So the patch I've sent preceding this small discussion should
> still be applied.

Fixed up and applied as c000b6b10ff06cc18f3e46b64d55a0e555628837.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

Re: Fix the reducelcs license

[Hartmut Goebel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 998 bytes --]

Ludovic Courtès writes:

>> >> Is there text in the GPL3 that says this? I was under the impression
>> >> that the "or any later version" clause had to be specified
>> >> explicitly.
> >
> > No it’s the opposite.
> >
> > Specifically, from Section 14 of GPLv3:
> >
> >   If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General
> >   Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free
> >   Software Foundation.
> >
> > In Guix we encode this as ‘gpl3+’.
> >
> > So the rule is: always put ‘+’ unless the source code headers or some
> > other prominent file restricts to a specific version of the license.

This is very important information for those filing up the licence
field. I'm quite sure I did it wrong.

Can you please add this to the manual, "Packaging" section. Thanks!

-- 
Regards
Hartmut Goebel

| Hartmut Goebel          | h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com               |
| www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which you thought are impossible |


[-- Attachment #2: 0xBF773B65.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 14855 bytes --]