Re: [ptxdist] [PATCH 2/2] doc: working with licensing information in packages

[Roland Hieber <rhi@pengutronix.de>]

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 02:03:00PM +0200, Michael Olbrich wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:40:49AM +0200, Roland Hieber wrote:
> > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 10:55:57AM +0200, Michael Olbrich wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 10:27:04AM +0200, Roland Hieber wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 08:23:46AM +0200, Michael Olbrich wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 12:03:06PM +0200, Roland Hieber wrote:
> > > > > > +License versions, and GPL-vv-only or GPL-vv-or-later?
> > > > > > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +If the ``COPYING`` file is a GPL text, it is still uncertain if the correct
> > > > > > +license identifier is *GPL-vv-only* or *GPL-vv-or-later*.
> > > > > > +The GPL text itself does not give information on that in its terms and
> > > > > > +conditions.
> > > > > > +Sometimes there is a notice at the top of the COPYING or the README file stating
> > > > > > +whether *"-only"* or *"-or-later"* applies – this is the easy case.
> > > > > > +Otherwise: check headers in relevant files.
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +If no license information can be found, but one file mentions e.g. *"GPL-vv or
> > > > > > +later"*, use that information for the whole project.
> > > > > > +E.g.: no license information can be found except a ``COPYING`` which contains
> > > > > > +a GPL-2.0 text → the license is GPL-2.0-only.
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +Sometimes the best information available is statements like
> > > > > > +*"this code is under GPL"* without any version information.
> > > > > > +Such cases should be interpreted as the most liberal reading,
> > > > > > +i.e. *GPL-1.0-or-later* (any possible GPL version).
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm not sure this is good. I would say, when in doubt then be restrictive.
> > > > > After all, this is about compliance. If we comply with the more restrictive
> > > > > interpretation then we also comply with more liberal interpretations.
> > > > 
> > > > What would being restrictive look like? We don't have any good pointers
> > > > as to what license to use here.
> > > 
> > > Use the version from the license text. Or are you saying there is no
> > > license text as well? I'm not sure if that's even distributable. Do you
> > > have an example for this?
> > 
> > https://git.pengutronix.de/cgit/rhi/ptxdist/commit/?h=6dc705e869353f24d3cd1be7698afcd119e8da95
> 
> "The whole package, starting with version 1.1.22, is distributed under·
> the GNU GPL license, found in the accompanying file 'COPYING'."
> 
> And the COPYING file does not exist... But check the latest version: The
> COPYING exist there and it's GPL-2.0 and with the wording above I'd say
> GPL-2.0-only.

Given that this release is from 2007, I'd rather file another staging
patch than do a version bump...

But what does that mean for the documentation patch above? Of course it
very much concerns only edge cases, but then, edge cases is what that
section is really about ^^ So I think only the wording needs to be
adapted to clarify that it applies only when not even a GPL text is
available. Or what was the reason in your view that the package was not
even distributable?

 - Roland

-- 
Roland Hieber, Pengutronix e.K.          | r.hieber@pengutronix.de     |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                     | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686         | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
ptxdist mailing list
ptxdist@pengutronix.de
To unsubscribe, send a mail with subject "unsubscribe" to ptxdist-request@pengutronix.de