15 Jan
2012
15 Jan
'12
12:57 p.m.
On Jan 12, 2012 7:09 AM, "Brendan Jones" <brendan.jones.it(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 01/01/2012 03:55 PM, Aurélien Leblond wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> During this jolly holidays, I worked a bit on the AMS LV2 plugins.
>
> The version 0.0.6 can be downloaded here:
>
http://sourceforge.net/projects/avwlv2/files/avw.lv2.0.0.6.tar.gz/download
can you just clarify the license for this for me? The Fedora review has
asked me
wether it is GPLv2 (as in the license file) or GPLv3 as per the
sourceforge page?
I'm actually not sure here!
The GPL is v2 in the code as it's the same one as coming from AMS.
I chose the v3 kind of "by accident" on Sourceforge (i.e. I didn't pay
attention!)
To be honest:
- I'm not even sure of what is the difference between the version 2 and the
version 3 of the GPL.
- The code is ported from AMS. Am I aload to change the license just like
that?
(it's crazy how although the concept of open-source is easy to grasp, it
gets quickly more complex when you dive into the licenses themselves)
Any advice here guys? It's my first open-source project and I'm kind of
lost!
@Fons: is it OK with you if I update the License to the GPLv3?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Aurélien
15 Jan
15 Jan
1:09 p.m.
New subject: AMS LV2 plugins: Version 0.0.6
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 11:57:58AM +0000, Aurélien Leblond wrote:
@Fons: is it OK with you if I update the License to
the GPLv3?
Sure. I did a lot of hacking all over AMS and contributed some
original modules. But I'm not the original author of most of AMS,
that was Matthias Nagorni.
Ciao,
--
FA
Vor uns liegt ein weites Tal, die Sonne scheint - ein Glitzerstrahl.
1:23 p.m.
New subject: AMS LV2 plugins: Version 0.0.6
On 01/15/2012 12:57 PM, Aurélien Leblond wrote:
On Jan 12, 2012 7:09 AM, "Brendan Jones" <brendan.jones.it(a)gmail.com
<mailto:brendan.jones.it@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Aurélien,
thanks for getting back to me. You can find some of your answers here
[1]. If AMS is GPL V2 both licenses would be perfectly valid in your case.
Depending on which one you choose, you will need to update the license
file. The license on your project page is not really of consequence its
just confusing. I would also suggest that you add headers to all of your
source code in the event that someone derives something from your work.
regards,
Brendan
[1] http://www.ifross.org/en/what-difference-between-gplv2-and-gplv3
On 01/01/2012 03:55 PM, Aurélien Leblond wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> During this jolly holidays, I worked a bit on the AMS LV2 plugins.
>
> The version 0.0.6 can be downloaded here:
>
http://sourceforge.net/projects/avwlv2/files/avw.lv2.0.0.6.tar.gz/download
can you just clarify the license for this for me? The Fedora review
has asked me
wether it is GPLv2 (as in the license file) or GPLv3 as per
the sourceforge page?
I'm actually not sure here!
The GPL is v2 in the code as it's the same one as coming from AMS.
I chose the v3 kind of "by accident" on Sourceforge (i.e. I didn't pay
attention!)
To be honest:
- I'm not even sure of what is the difference between the version 2 and
the version 3 of the GPL.
- The code is ported from AMS. Am I aload to change the license just
like that?
(it's crazy how although the concept of open-source is easy to grasp, it
gets quickly more complex when you dive into the licenses themselves)
Any advice here guys? It's my first open-source project and I'm kind of
lost!
@Fons: is it OK with you if I update the License to the GPLv3?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Aurélien
1:26 p.m.
New subject: AMS LV2 plugins: Version 0.0.6
On Sun, 2012-01-15 at 11:57 +0000, Aurélien Leblond wrote:
On Jan 12, 2012 7:09 AM, "Brendan Jones" <brendan.jones.it(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
IAAL, but IIUC GPLv2 by default means "GPLv2 or later", since there's a
note "or (at your option) any later version".
Some coders reedited this to "GPLv2 only". GPLv3 is controversial.
- Ralf
On 01/01/2012 03:55 PM, Aurélien Leblond wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> During this jolly holidays, I worked a bit on the AMS LV2 plugins.
>
> The version 0.0.6 can be downloaded here:
>
http://sourceforge.net/projects/avwlv2/files/avw.lv2.0.0.6.tar.gz/download
can you just clarify the license for this for me? The Fedora review
has asked me
wether it is GPLv2 (as in the license file) or GPLv3 as
per the sourceforge page?
I'm actually not sure here!
The GPL is v2 in the code as it's the same one as coming from AMS.
I chose the v3 kind of "by accident" on Sourceforge (i.e. I didn't pay
attention!)
To be honest:
- I'm not even sure of what is the difference between the version 2
and the version 3 of the GPL.
- The code is ported from AMS. Am I aload to change the license just
like that?
(it's crazy how although the concept of open-source is easy to grasp,
it gets quickly more complex when you dive into the licenses
themselves)
Any advice here guys? It's my first open-source project and I'm kind
of lost!
@Fons: is it OK with you if I update the License to the GPLv3?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Aurélien
1:28 p.m.
New subject: AMS LV2 plugins: Version 0.0.6
On Sun, 2012-01-15 at 13:26 +0100, Ralf Madorf wrote:
On Sun, 2012-01-15 at 11:57 +0000, Aurélien Leblond
wrote:
^^^^
pardon, IANAL
On Jan 12, 2012 7:09 AM, "Brendan Jones" <brendan.jones.it(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
IAAL
On 01/01/2012 03:55 PM, Aurélien Leblond wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> During this jolly holidays, I worked a bit on the AMS LV2 plugins.
>
> The version 0.0.6 can be downloaded here:
>
http://sourceforge.net/projects/avwlv2/files/avw.lv2.0.0.6.tar.gz/download
can you just clarify the license for this for me? The Fedora review
has asked me
wether it is GPLv2 (as in the license file) or GPLv3 as
per the sourceforge page?
I'm actually not sure here!
The GPL is v2 in the code as it's the same one as coming from AMS.
I chose the v3 kind of "by accident" on Sourceforge (i.e. I didn't pay
attention!)
To be honest:
- I'm not even sure of what is the difference between the version 2
and the version 3 of the GPL.
- The code is ported from AMS. Am I aload to change the license just
like that?
(it's crazy how although the concept of open-source is easy to grasp,
it gets quickly more complex when you dive into the licenses
themselves)
Any advice here guys? It's my first open-source project and I'm kind
of lost!
@Fons: is it OK with you if I update the License to the GPLv3?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Aurélien , but IIUC GPLv2 by default means "GPLv2 or
later", since there's a
note "or (at your option) any later version".
Some coders reedited this to "GPLv2 only". GPLv3 is controversial.
- Ralf
5:35 p.m.
New subject: AMS LV2 plugins: Version 0.0.6
On 01/15/2012 12:57 PM, Aurélien Leblond wrote:
The GPL is v2 in the code as it's the same one as
coming from AMS.
As Ralf rightfully remarked, you have to check the original code for the
exact wording of the license. If it's GPLv2+ ("GPLv2 or later") you're
free to choose either GPLv2+ or GPLv3+, as the authors explicitly gave
you the permission to do that.
Unfortunately, the AMS manpage indeed seems to indicate that it is
licensed under GPLv2 only as the "or later" clause is missing there, and
I can't find any other statement in the latest released tarball or on
the website clarifying the license.
So your code probably needs to be licensed under GPLv2 only. GPLv2 is
still fine as a license (unless you're bothered by modern absurdities
like DRM, tivoization and software patents, that is). It poses a problem
if people want to use your code in their GPLv3+ projects, though -- they
can't.
So my interpretation is that if you'd like to relicense under GPLv3+
you'll have to contact Matthias Nagorni and get his explicit written
permission. According to the AMS manpage he's the only copyright holder
and I can't find any other copyright notices in the code, even though
there's no doubt that AMS has had a lot of contributions from Fons and
other people.
If I'm not mistaken, Matthias has long left for greener pastures,
though. Matthias, are you still lurking here? Maybe you can clarify the
license?
- I'm not even sure of what is the difference
between the version 2 and
the version 3 of the GPL.
There's plenty of information about that on the web. From the horse's
mouth: http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html.
- The code is ported from AMS. Am I aload to change
the license just
like that?
The license statement along with the license text tells you exactly what
you're allowed to do. In this case, as the "or later" clause is missing,
you're bound by the terms of the GPLv2, as set forth in the accompanying
COPYING file. Specifically, term 2 of the license tells you that you
have to relicense your derived work under the terms of the same license.
Disclaimer: IANAL either and this isn't legal advice, so when in doubt
consult your lawyer. ;-) But this is how I read the license terms of
AMS, to the best of my knowledge.
HTH,
Albert
--
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email: Dr.Graef(a)t-online.de, ag(a)muwiinfa.geschichte.uni-mainz.de
WWW: http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag
5:46 p.m.
New subject: AMS LV2 plugins: Version 0.0.6
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 05:35:33PM +0100, Albert Graef wrote:
So my interpretation is that if you'd like to
relicense under GPLv3+
you'll have to contact Matthias Nagorni and get his explicit written
permission. According to the AMS manpage he's the only copyright holder
and I can't find any other copyright notices in the code, even though
there's no doubt that AMS has had a lot of contributions from Fons and
other people.
See Help->About for the list of authors.
Ciao,
--
FA
Vor uns liegt ein weites Tal, die Sonne scheint - ein Glitzerstrahl.
6:21 p.m.
New subject: AMS LV2 plugins: Version 0.0.6
On 01/15/2012 05:45 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
See Help->About for the list of authors.
Right, the About dialog at least contains some up-to-date copyright
notices. But it doesn't detail the exact license terms either, so
presumably that would still be GPLv2 only.
--
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email: Dr.Graef(a)t-online.de, ag(a)muwiinfa.geschichte.uni-mainz.de
WWW: http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag
6:12 p.m.
New subject: AMS LV2 plugins: Version 0.0.6
On 01/15/2012 05:35 PM, Albert Graef wrote:
Unfortunately, the AMS manpage indeed seems to
indicate that it is
licensed under GPLv2 only as the "or later" clause is missing there, and
I can't find any other statement in the latest released tarball or on
the website clarifying the license.
Vesrion 2.0.1 license does include the 'and later' clause in the COPYING
file.
Brendan
9:12 p.m.
New subject: AMS LV2 plugins: Version 0.0.6
On 01/15/2012 06:12 PM, Brendan Jones wrote:
Vesrion 2.0.1 license does include the 'and
later' clause in the COPYING
file.
That item just explains the wording to be used if you want GPLv2+. But
in this case the authors didn't.
--
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email: Dr.Graef(a)t-online.de, ag(a)muwiinfa.geschichte.uni-mainz.de
WWW: http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag
6:36 p.m.
New subject: AMS LV2 plugins: Version 0.0.6
On Sun, 2012-01-15 at 17:35 +0100, Albert Graef wrote:
On 01/15/2012 12:57 PM, Aurélien Leblond wrote:
$ cat ~/Desktop/ams-2.0.1/COPYING
[snip]
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and
conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version
number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the
Free Software
Foundation.
10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the
author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the
Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we
sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the
two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free
software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
[snip and end]
So "GPLv2" without a "+" or similar indeed seems to stand for
"GPLv2
only".
The GPL is v2 in the code as it's the same
one as coming from AMS.
As Ralf rightfully remarked, you have to check the original code for the
exact wording of the license. If it's GPLv2+ ("GPLv2 or later") you're
free to choose either GPLv2+ or GPLv3+, as the authors explicitly gave
you the permission to do that.
Unfortunately, the AMS manpage indeed seems to indicate that it is
licensed under GPLv2 only as the "or later" clause is missing there, and
I can't find any other statement in the latest released tarball or on
the website clarifying the license.
So your code probably needs to be licensed under GPLv2 only. GPLv2 is
still fine as a license (unless you're bothered by modern absurdities
like DRM, tivoization and software patents, that is). It poses a problem
if people want to use your code in their GPLv3+ projects, though -- they
can't.
So my interpretation is that if you'd like to relicense under GPLv3+
you'll have to contact Matthias Nagorni and get his explicit written
permission. According to the AMS manpage he's the only copyright holder
and I can't find any other copyright notices in the code, even though
there's no doubt that AMS has had a lot of contributions from Fons and
other people.
If I'm not mistaken, Matthias has long left for greener pastures,
though. Matthias, are you still lurking here? Maybe you can clarify the
license?
- I'm not even sure of what is the difference
between the version 2 and
the version 3 of the GPL.
There's plenty of information about that on the web. From the horse's
mouth: http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html.
- The code is ported from AMS. Am I aload to
change the license just
like that?
The license statement along with the license text tells you exactly what
you're allowed to do. In this case, as the "or later" clause is missing,
you're bound by the terms of the GPLv2, as set forth in the accompanying
COPYING file. Specifically, term 2 of the license tells you that you
have to relicense your derived work under the terms of the same license.
Disclaimer: IANAL either and this isn't legal advice, so when in doubt
consult your lawyer. ;-) But this is how I read the license terms of
AMS, to the best of my knowledge.
HTH,
Albert
9:10 p.m.
New subject: AMS LV2 plugins: Version 0.0.6
On 01/15/2012 06:36 PM, Ralf Madorf wrote:
So "GPLv2" without a "+" or
similar indeed seems to stand for "GPLv2
only".
There's no doubt about this. I've had to deal with code lifted from
projects which, for whatever reason, are still stuck with GPLv2, such as
Gnumeric.
--
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email: Dr.Graef(a)t-online.de, ag(a)muwiinfa.geschichte.uni-mainz.de
WWW: http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag
4828
days inactive
4828
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
12 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Albert Graef -
Aurélien Leblond -
Brendan Jones -
Fons Adriaensen -
Ralf Madorf