xkblayout-state

xkblayout-state

[Jone]

Hi people!
How do I build https://github.com/nonpop/xkblayout-state ?
I need it for switching keyboard layout with one key (LWin), in Emacs
and in X.

Re: xkblayout-state

[Gábor Boskovits]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1073 bytes --]

2018-04-26 1:26 GMT+02:00 Jone <yeger9@gmail.com>:

> Hi people!
> How do I build https://github.com/nonpop/xkblayout-state ?
> I need it for switching keyboard layout with one key (LWin), in Emacs
> and in X.
>
> Hello!

I've checked the mentioned software. It seems, that it is non-free. This is
caused
by  partial application of GPL2. What is missing is an explicit license
file, and some
license notes. As it seems, that the intention of the author was to release
this software
under GPL2, it might be easy to have it fixed. Please point the author to
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html.

With that said, it is still possible to build it, and even to write a guix
package
for it, but until the licencing issue is resolved this package cannot make
to upstream guix.
It is possible to build software, like in any other distro to build this in
your own home directory
with the appropriate toolchain installed. It is also possible to write a
package, you could have
a look at the manual for defining packages. Should you need any more help,
don't hesitate to ask.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2651 bytes --]

Re: xkblayout-state

[Jone]

> Please point the author to
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html.

Not with my level of English :(

I somehow launched xkblayout-state from my previous build. My method
switching keyboard layout: 
1. get current window name (xdotool)
2. if Emacs then xdotool->emacs_shortcut
   if not Emacs then ~/bin/xkblayout-state set -1
It's a dirty hack, but.. works!

Re: xkblayout-state

[Leo Famulari]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 938 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:13:09AM +0200, Gábor Boskovits wrote:
> 2018-04-26 1:26 GMT+02:00 Jone <yeger9@gmail.com>:
> 
> > Hi people!
> > How do I build https://github.com/nonpop/xkblayout-state ?
> > I need it for switching keyboard layout with one key (LWin), in Emacs
> > and in X.
> >
> > Hello!
> 
> I've checked the mentioned software. It seems, that it is non-free. This is
> caused
> by  partial application of GPL2. What is missing is an explicit license
> file, and some
> license notes. As it seems, that the intention of the author was to release
> this software
> under GPL2, it might be easy to have it fixed. Please point the author to
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html.

Why do you think the software is not free software distributed under the
GPL2+?

The author explicitly states in the README that they have released it as
GPL2+, and most of the files also contain license headers.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: xkblayout-state

[Gábor Boskovits]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1502 bytes --]

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. ápr. 26., Cs
20:43):

> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:13:09AM +0200, Gábor Boskovits wrote:
> > 2018-04-26 1:26 GMT+02:00 Jone <yeger9@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Hi people!
> > > How do I build https://github.com/nonpop/xkblayout-state ?
> > > I need it for switching keyboard layout with one key (LWin), in Emacs
> > > and in X.
> > >
> > > Hello!
> >
> > I've checked the mentioned software. It seems, that it is non-free. This
> is
> > caused
> > by  partial application of GPL2. What is missing is an explicit license
> > file, and some
> > license notes. As it seems, that the intention of the author was to
> release
> > this software
> > under GPL2, it might be easy to have it fixed. Please point the author to
> > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html.
>
> Why do you think the software is not free software distributed under the
> GPL2+?
>
> The author explicitly states in the README that they have released it as
> GPL2+, and most of the files also contain license headers.
>

Sorry if I misunderstood, the intention of the author is clearly to licence
the work as gpl, but some files are missing the gpl clause. Also a copy of
the license is omitted. It is mandated by term 1 of gpl. If this partial
application of gpl makes this a free software, then sorry for the noise. In
case this software is ok for upstream, and is not packaged yet, then I
would be happy to contribute a package.

>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2420 bytes --]

Re: xkblayout-state

[Leo Famulari]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 983 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:15:23PM +0000, Gábor Boskovits wrote:
> Sorry if I misunderstood, the intention of the author is clearly to licence
> the work as gpl, but some files are missing the gpl clause. Also a copy of
> the license is omitted. It is mandated by term 1 of gpl. If this partial
> application of gpl makes this a free software, then sorry for the noise. In
> case this software is ok for upstream, and is not packaged yet, then I
> would be happy to contribute a package.

Many (if not most) of our packages omit some license headers, so I don't
think we should count that as a blocker.

As for the missing LICENSE file, that's also suboptimal, but as you say,
the author clearly intends to distribute the work as GPL2+.

One could ask the author the include the LICENSE file, but I think we
can go ahead with adding the software to Guix as it is now.

What do you think? And others, do you think it's okay to go ahead with
packaging this program?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: xkblayout-state

[Gábor Boskovits]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1387 bytes --]

2018-04-26 22:47 GMT+02:00 Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>:

> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:15:23PM +0000, Gábor Boskovits wrote:
> > Sorry if I misunderstood, the intention of the author is clearly to
> licence
> > the work as gpl, but some files are missing the gpl clause. Also a copy
> of
> > the license is omitted. It is mandated by term 1 of gpl. If this partial
> > application of gpl makes this a free software, then sorry for the noise.
> In
> > case this software is ok for upstream, and is not packaged yet, then I
> > would be happy to contribute a package.
>
> Many (if not most) of our packages omit some license headers, so I don't
> think we should count that as a blocker.
>
> As for the missing LICENSE file, that's also suboptimal, but as you say,
> the author clearly intends to distribute the work as GPL2+.
>
> One could ask the author the include the LICENSE file, but I think we
> can go ahead with adding the software to Guix as it is now.
>
> What do you think? And others, do you think it's okay to go ahead with
> packaging this program?
>

Ok, I will contact the author, and ask to include a license file. I will
prepare a patch
tomorrow. I've noticed one more thing, this software does not seem to have
official
releases. Should I prepare the package based on the tip of current master?
What version number should be given?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1899 bytes --]

Re: xkblayout-state

[Leo Famulari]

On April 26, 2018 4:53:56 PM EDT, "Gábor Boskovits" <boskovits@gmail.com> wrote:
>2018-04-26 22:47 GMT+02:00 Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:15:23PM +0000, Gábor Boskovits wrote:
>> > Sorry if I misunderstood, the intention of the author is clearly to
>> licence
>> > the work as gpl, but some files are missing the gpl clause. Also a
>copy
>> of
>> > the license is omitted. It is mandated by term 1 of gpl. If this
>partial
>> > application of gpl makes this a free software, then sorry for the
>noise.
>> In
>> > case this software is ok for upstream, and is not packaged yet,
>then I
>> > would be happy to contribute a package.
>>
>> Many (if not most) of our packages omit some license headers, so I
>don't
>> think we should count that as a blocker.
>>
>> As for the missing LICENSE file, that's also suboptimal, but as you
>say,
>> the author clearly intends to distribute the work as GPL2+.
>>
>> One could ask the author the include the LICENSE file, but I think we
>> can go ahead with adding the software to Guix as it is now.
>>
>> What do you think? And others, do you think it's okay to go ahead
>with
>> packaging this program?
>>
>
>Ok, I will contact the author, and ask to include a license file. I
>will
>prepare a patch
>tomorrow. I've noticed one more thing, this software does not seem to
>have
>official
>releases. Should I prepare the package based on the tip of current
>master?
>What version number should be given?

Use whatever commit is recommended upstream or, if there is no recommendation, the latest commit.

Please see the manual section Version Numbers for the full answer regarding the version identifier. There are two procedures, git-version and git-file-name, that will be useful here.

Re: xkblayout-state

[Gábor Boskovits]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2043 bytes --]

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. ápr. 27., P
15:56):

>
>
> On April 26, 2018 4:53:56 PM EDT, "Gábor Boskovits" <boskovits@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >2018-04-26 22:47 GMT+02:00 Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>:
> >
> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:15:23PM +0000, Gábor Boskovits wrote:
> >> > Sorry if I misunderstood, the intention of the author is clearly to
> >> licence
> >> > the work as gpl, but some files are missing the gpl clause. Also a
> >copy
> >> of
> >> > the license is omitted. It is mandated by term 1 of gpl. If this
> >partial
> >> > application of gpl makes this a free software, then sorry for the
> >noise.
> >> In
> >> > case this software is ok for upstream, and is not packaged yet,
> >then I
> >> > would be happy to contribute a package.
> >>
> >> Many (if not most) of our packages omit some license headers, so I
> >don't
> >> think we should count that as a blocker.
> >>
> >> As for the missing LICENSE file, that's also suboptimal, but as you
> >say,
> >> the author clearly intends to distribute the work as GPL2+.
> >>
> >> One could ask the author the include the LICENSE file, but I think we
> >> can go ahead with adding the software to Guix as it is now.
> >>
> >> What do you think? And others, do you think it's okay to go ahead
> >with
> >> packaging this program?
> >>
> >
> >Ok, I will contact the author, and ask to include a license file. I
> >will
> >prepare a patch
> >tomorrow. I've noticed one more thing, this software does not seem to
> >have
> >official
> >releases. Should I prepare the package based on the tip of current
> >master?
> >What version number should be given?
>
> Use whatever commit is recommended upstream or, if there is no
> recommendation, the latest commit.
>
> Please see the manual section Version Numbers for the full answer
> regarding the version identifier. There are two procedures, git-version and
> git-file-name, that will be useful here.
>

Thanks, I will have a look.

>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2988 bytes --]

Re: xkblayout-state

[Gábor Boskovits]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2318 bytes --]

2018-04-27 16:09 GMT+02:00 Gábor Boskovits <boskovits@gmail.com>:

>
>
> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. ápr. 27., P
> 15:56):
>
>>
>>
>> On April 26, 2018 4:53:56 PM EDT, "Gábor Boskovits" <boskovits@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >2018-04-26 22:47 GMT+02:00 Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:15:23PM +0000, Gábor Boskovits wrote:
>> >> > Sorry if I misunderstood, the intention of the author is clearly to
>> >> licence
>> >> > the work as gpl, but some files are missing the gpl clause. Also a
>> >copy
>> >> of
>> >> > the license is omitted. It is mandated by term 1 of gpl. If this
>> >partial
>> >> > application of gpl makes this a free software, then sorry for the
>> >noise.
>> >> In
>> >> > case this software is ok for upstream, and is not packaged yet,
>> >then I
>> >> > would be happy to contribute a package.
>> >>
>> >> Many (if not most) of our packages omit some license headers, so I
>> >don't
>> >> think we should count that as a blocker.
>> >>
>> >> As for the missing LICENSE file, that's also suboptimal, but as you
>> >say,
>> >> the author clearly intends to distribute the work as GPL2+.
>> >>
>> >> One could ask the author the include the LICENSE file, but I think we
>> >> can go ahead with adding the software to Guix as it is now.
>> >>
>> >> What do you think? And others, do you think it's okay to go ahead
>> >with
>> >> packaging this program?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Ok, I will contact the author, and ask to include a license file. I
>> >will
>> >prepare a patch
>> >tomorrow. I've noticed one more thing, this software does not seem to
>> >have
>> >official
>> >releases. Should I prepare the package based on the tip of current
>> >master?
>> >What version number should be given?
>>
>> Use whatever commit is recommended upstream or, if there is no
>> recommendation, the latest commit.
>>
>> Please see the manual section Version Numbers for the full answer
>> regarding the version identifier. There are two procedures, git-version and
>> git-file-name, that will be useful here.
>>
>
> Thanks, I will have a look.
>
>>
I have contacted upstream, informed about the issue with the licensing, and
requested a release. I'm waiting for their feedback now.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3597 bytes --]

Re: xkblayout-state

[Leo Famulari]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 261 bytes --]

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 09:14:36AM +0200, Gábor Boskovits wrote:
> I have contacted upstream, informed about the issue with the licensing, and
> requested a release. I'm waiting for their feedback now.

Okay, in the meantime we can proceed with packaging.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: xkblayout-state

[Chris Marusich]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2106 bytes --]

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:

> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:15:23PM +0000, Gábor Boskovits wrote:
>> Sorry if I misunderstood, the intention of the author is clearly to licence
>> the work as gpl, but some files are missing the gpl clause. Also a copy of
>> the license is omitted. It is mandated by term 1 of gpl. If this partial
>> application of gpl makes this a free software, then sorry for the noise. In
>> case this software is ok for upstream, and is not packaged yet, then I
>> would be happy to contribute a package.
>
> Many (if not most) of our packages omit some license headers, so I don't
> think we should count that as a blocker.
>
> As for the missing LICENSE file, that's also suboptimal, but as you say,
> the author clearly intends to distribute the work as GPL2+.
>
> One could ask the author the include the LICENSE file, but I think we
> can go ahead with adding the software to Guix as it is now.
>
> What do you think? And others, do you think it's okay to go ahead with
> packaging this program?

As you said, it seems clear that the author intended this to be GPLv2+.
The REAMDE.md file states:

  License
  -------

  *xkblayout-state* is free software: you can redistribute it and/or
   modify it 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.

  *xkblayout-state* is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
  but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
  MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
  General Public License for more
  details. <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>

I agree with Leo: I think it's reasonable to take the author at their
word and package this as GPLv2+.  At the same time, Gábor is also right:
to eliminate any shadow of doubt, the author should probably follow the
advice that Gábor gave.  Whoever packages the software should probably
contact the author and give them a friendly reminder about that.

-- 
Chris

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