From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id UElfOSthhV+jRAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:11:23 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id ANErNSthhV8YSAAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:11:23 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F23C89401D0 for ; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:11:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:51138 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kSFOs-0002rd-4r for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 04:11:14 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50052) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kSFOg-0002k2-Cy for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 04:11:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:33554) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kSFOg-0001oI-00 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 04:11:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kSFOf-00022I-Rk for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 04:11:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#43975] [PATCH 0/1] gnu: Add ccal [And asking for help on license issue]. Resent-From: pengmeiyu@riseup.net Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:11:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: report 43975 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: 43975@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: Peng Mei Yu X-Debbugs-Original-To: guix-patches@gnu.org Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.16025766457798 (code B ref -1); Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:11:01 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Oct 2020 08:10:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45100 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kSFOO-00021i-Ki for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 04:10:44 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:38958) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kSFOM-00021a-To for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 04:10:43 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49908) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kSFOL-0002TR-Ho for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 04:10:42 -0400 Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]:50456) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kSFOI-0001lY-W2 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 04:10:41 -0400 Received: from bell.riseup.net (bell-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "Sectigo RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (not verified)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C9Srx07g0zFfxg; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 01:10:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1602576629; bh=2/OJ5GsmV1G+iQnKY5K4l5eS86UNHdya5y5VgdekWck=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=JUdXsyo9rnhindL66ao3dXHDkCHZjQsumYPX422Cw+hIA4NrZes3L+K02/sSZLtae EUL3SgS2cXCXbhs/LhvBb0PFimKtHqwKbXXIt6QQ76mKvhDyX0Prn1F8fpC3jwcA3A 50PZTATIMwzGWTYve0XAGKOi7USl5zmZNubcER8I= X-Riseup-User-ID: 169B265C15DC9729A11BDA2B3C022F18C7416DD29E43382805CE6CC8A7C331E8 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bell.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C9Srp6k0czJqQZ; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 01:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.lan [::1]) by dinosaur (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 5e7d8b4b; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 08:09:52 +0000 (UTC) From: pengmeiyu@riseup.net Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 16:09:15 +0800 Message-Id: <20201013080915.23344-1-pengmeiyu@riseup.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=198.252.153.129; envelope-from=pengmeiyu@riseup.net; helo=mx1.riseup.net X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/10/13 04:10:32 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.11 and newer [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-BeenThere: guix-patches@gnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (rsa verify failed) header.d=riseup.net header.s=squak header.b=JUdXsyo9; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=riseup.net (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 5.09 X-TUID: FKtpmNO61a04 From: Peng Mei Yu Hi everyone, This patch adds ccal, a program for Chinese calendar. This program has a weird license issue. The program's original license was GPL v2+, then the author changed part of the source code to LGPL under the request of third-party users. You can find the email discussion here: https://github.com/liangqi/kcalendar/blob/c77098a1f3133878743632cdd5788377161610a1/README#L57 The problem is within the LGPL license notice in source code. The LGPL license published by FSF can be one of three choices: - GNU Library General Public License, version 2.0 - GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1 - GNU Lesser General Public License, version 3.0 1. In the license notice sections of source code, the author wrote: mphases.cpp: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Distributed under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- "GNU Lesser General Public License" and "version 2" is not a valid combination. "GNU Lesser General Public License" can be either version 2.1 or version 3.0. 2. In the README file, the author also missspelled "GNU Lesser General Public License". "GNU Less General Public License" is not a valid license name. README: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. Portions related to computing of Chinese dates are distributed under the terms of the GNU Less General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- 3. The COPYING.LESSER file bundled with source code is a copy of LGPL v3. This is a total mess. I think the author's intention was to release the code with "GNU Library General Public License, version 2.0 or any later version". However what he wrote in the code is "GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." I think LGPL v2.1 and v3.0 is compatible with this sentence. But I am not sure if "GNU Library General Public License, version 2.0" can be considered compatible. I am in no way familiar with the western legal system, so this is only my personal opinion. The GNU.org webset lists "GNU Library General Public License, version 2.0" as an old version of "GNU Lesser General Public License": https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/old-licenses.html Does that mean the FSF thinks "GNU Library General Public License, version 2.0" is equal to "GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.0"? Will this hold in a court? What's your opinion? Thanks in advance.