GPLv3

GPLv3

[Russell Coker]

What are we going to do regarding GPLv3?

The NSA code has no copyright (being produced by the US government) and the 
majority of other code included in the SE Linux policy and utilities comes 
from a small number of sources.  Getting agreement to relicense the source 
under GPLv3 should not be that difficult (if Tresys, Red Hat, and IBM agree 
then we're almost there).

I think that the patent clauses in GPLv3 have some potential to avoid problems 
in future, and if nothing else will be good PR.

I would like to relicense my code under GPLv3.  Anyone who wants to use any of 
my SE Linux related code under GPLv3 can do so.  Of course this doesn't give 
any real benefit unless others join in.

-- 
russell@coker.com.au
http://etbe.coker.com.au/          My Blog

http://www.coker.com.au/sponsorship.html Sponsoring Free Software development

--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: GPLv3

[Karl MacMillan]

On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 19:29 +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> What are we going to do regarding GPLv3?
> 
> The NSA code has no copyright (being produced by the US government) and the 
> majority of other code included in the SE Linux policy and utilities comes 
> from a small number of sources.  Getting agreement to relicense the source 
> under GPLv3 should not be that difficult (if Tresys, Red Hat, and IBM agree 
> then we're almost there).
> 
> I think that the patent clauses in GPLv3 have some potential to avoid problems 
> in future, and if nothing else will be good PR.
> 
> I would like to relicense my code under GPLv3.  Anyone who wants to use any of 
> my SE Linux related code under GPLv3 can do so.  Of course this doesn't give 
> any real benefit unless others join in.
> 

I think it is too soon to do this. The FSF is still preparing documents
on how best to transition to the v3 and I think it is going to take a
while for corporations to digest the changes.

I'd rather wait to consider this as I don't believe there is any real
benefit from us being an early adopter. Most importantly, I want to see
how the v2/v3 incompatibilities are handled by other projects.

Karl


--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: GPLv3

[John D. Ramsdell]

Karl MacMillan <kmacmillan@mentalrootkit.com> writes:

> On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 19:29 +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> > What are we going to do regarding GPLv3?

> I think it is too soon to do this. ...

I notice FSF already has cute Buttons available for projects to
promote their switch to GPLv3 at http://gplv3.fsf.org/.

Seriously though, in Richard Stallman's page titled "Why Upgrade to
GPLv3", you can find this quote:

   When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there
   is no legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3
   in a single program.

This means a GPLv2 library cannot be linked with a GPLv3 program, as I
read it.  I think Karl's call for careful planning before any switch
is wise.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html

John

--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: GPLv3

[Russell Coker]

On Tuesday 03 July 2007 01:30, "John D. Ramsdell" <ramsdell@mitre.org> wrote:
> This means a GPLv2 library cannot be linked with a GPLv3 program, as I
> read it.  I think Karl's call for careful planning before any switch
> is wise.

LGPLv3 should be fine for libraries.

On Tuesday 03 July 2007 01:30, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> wrote:
> Does your opinion means that non-GPL software like libselinux also
> should be relicensed to GPL-v3?
> If so, the incompatibility is not acceptable for several non-GPL
> softwares like PostgreSQL (BSD licensed).

PostgreSQL is linked against glibc, I expect LGPLv3 to work everywhere that 
LGPLv2 works.

-- 
russell@coker.com.au
http://etbe.coker.com.au/          My Blog

http://www.coker.com.au/sponsorship.html Sponsoring Free Software development

--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.

Re: GPLv3

[KaiGai Kohei]

Russell,

Does your opinion means that non-GPL software like libselinux also
should be relicensed to GPL-v3?
If so, the incompatibility is not acceptable for several non-GPL
softwares like PostgreSQL (BSD licensed).

Russell Coker wrote:
> What are we going to do regarding GPLv3?
> 
> The NSA code has no copyright (being produced by the US government) and the 
> majority of other code included in the SE Linux policy and utilities comes 
> from a small number of sources.  Getting agreement to relicense the source 
> under GPLv3 should not be that difficult (if Tresys, Red Hat, and IBM agree 
> then we're almost there).
> 
> I think that the patent clauses in GPLv3 have some potential to avoid problems 
> in future, and if nothing else will be good PR.
> 
> I would like to relicense my code under GPLv3.  Anyone who wants to use any of 
> my SE Linux related code under GPLv3 can do so.  Of course this doesn't give 
> any real benefit unless others join in.

-- 
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>

--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@tycho.nsa.gov with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.