With the GNU GPL version 3 scheduled to be released tomorrow, are there any plans on adopting this license for Grass?
~ Eric.
Patton, Eric wrote:
With the GNU GPL version 3 scheduled to be released tomorrow, are there any
plans on adopting this license for Grass?
Eric,
Has it been approved by OSI yet? OSGeo has taken the position that project
code will only be released under OSI approved licenses, and so I think
project adoption of GPL3 should wait for that process to be completed
by OSI.
I asked OSI (via one director) about it a few months ago and they hadn't
started any serious review at that time.
Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam@pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org
Patton, Eric wrote:
With the GNU GPL version 3 scheduled to be released tomorrow, are there any
plans on adopting this license for Grass?
Eric,
Has it been approved by OSI yet? OSGeo has taken the position that project
code will only be released under OSI approved licenses, and so I think
project adoption of GPL3 should wait for that process to be completed
by OSI.
I asked OSI (via one director) about it a few months ago and they hadn't
started any serious review at that time.
Best regards,
--
From what I can see on the OSI site, they haven't approved GPL3 yet, but that's not surprising given it hasn't been officially released yet. It might be something worth keeping on eye on if it's the intention of the developers to adopt GPL3 at some point.
~ Eric.
grassuser-bounces@grass.itc.it wrote on 29/06/2007 02:11:53 AM:
Patton, Eric wrote:
>> With the GNU GPL version 3 scheduled to be released tomorrow, arethere
any
>> plans on adopting this license for Grass?
>Eric,
>Has it been approved by OSI yet? OSGeo has taken the position that
project
>code will only be released under OSI approved licenses, and so I think
>project adoption of GPL3 should wait for that process to be completed
>by OSI.
>I asked OSI (via one director) about it a few months ago and they hadn't
>started any serious review at that time.
Best regards,
--
>From what I can see on the OSI site, they haven't approved GPL3
yet, but that's not surprising given it hasn't been officially
released yet. It might be something worth keeping on eye on if it's
the intention of the developers to adopt GPL3 at some point.
~ Eric.
Is copyright on GRASS code held by individual authors?
Or is the copyright transferred to the GRASS project itself
when code is submitted?
Or, to put it another way, does adopting a different liscence
require the concent of every single contributor, or merely
a decision by the project steering committee?
nick
***********************************************************************
WARNING: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain legally
privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected by
copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was intended
to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one is
allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, print
or copy this e-mail without appropriate authority.
If this e-mail was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake,
please telephone or e-mail me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of
this e-mail and delete it and any copies of it from your computer
system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and
any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this e-mail is not
waived or destroyed by that mistake.
It is your responsibility to ensure that this e-mail does not contain
and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by
third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with
your computer system).
Opinions contained in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect the
opinions of the Queensland Department of Main Roads, Queensland
Transport or Maritime Safety Queensland, or endorsed organisations
utilising the same infrastructure.
***********************************************************************
(cc grass-psc)
On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 09:54:00AM +1000, nicholas.g.lawrence@mainroads.qld.gov.au wrote:
Patton, Eric wrote:
> Patton, Eric wrote:
> > With the GNU GPL version 3 scheduled to be released tomorrow, are there
> > are plans on adopting this license for Grass?
> >
> > Frank Warmderdam wrote:
> > > Eric,
> > > Has it been approved by OSI yet? OSGeo has taken the position that project
> > > code will only be released under OSI approved licenses, and so I think
> > > project adoption of GPL3 should wait for that process to be completed
> > > by OSI.
> > >
> > > I asked OSI (via one director) about it a few months ago and they hadn't
> > > started any serious review at that time.
> > >
> > > Best regards,> From what I can see on the OSI site, they haven't approved GPL3
> yet, but that's not surprising given it hasn't been officially
> released yet. It might be something worth keeping on eye on if it's
> the intention of the developers to adopt GPL3 at some point.
>
> ~ Eric.Is copyright on GRASS code held by individual authors?
In general yes.
Or is the copyright transferred to the GRASS project itself
when code is submitted?
No. We don't have copyright transfer. This was discussed a lot
last year in terms of an OSGeo contribution agreement.
Or, to put it another way, does adopting a different liscence
require the concent of every single contributor, or merely
a decision by the project steering committee?
As far as I understand it, it requires the concent of every
single contributor *if* the new license is not compliant
with GPL. Note that most (all?) code contains GPL >= V2.
But GRASS-PSC is certainly involved in the decision.
nick
[ too long privacy statemente removed ]
Markus
Eric Patton wrote:
With the GNU GPL version 3 scheduled to be released tomorrow,
are there are plans on adopting this license for Grass?
my 2c:
Sit on it for 6 months - a year (or two!) after release and see how the
dust settles before seriously raising the issue. Do not accept GPL2-
incompatible code until such time as that decision is made.
(aka don't be the guinea pig; keep the licensing terms clear & crisp)
Eric:
> Is copyright on GRASS code held by individual authors?
Markus:
In general yes.
> Or is the copyright transferred to the GRASS project itself
> when code is submitted?No. We don't have copyright transfer. This was discussed a lot
last year in terms of an OSGeo contribution agreement.
It is suggested that co-copyright be granted to "The GRASS Development
Team", but as Frank pointed out that only exists as a moral entity, not
a legal one, so the issue is still open. Joining OSGeo means that
forming a legal non-profit GRASS Foundation (or OGCv2) for that is
mostly a redundant exercise, but there are reservations with handing GDT
copyright over to OSGeo wholesale (ie in the hands of folks who are
outside of the grass community [if only slightly]).
> Or, to put it another way, does adopting a different liscence
> require the concent of every single contributor, or merely
> a decision by the project steering committee?As far as I understand it, it requires the concent of every
single contributor *if* the new license is not compliant
with GPL. Note that most (all?) code contains GPL >= V2.
And that GPL3 is not retroactive to already released versions.
Hamish
This sounds eminently reasonable--especially given all the flap over GPL3.
Maybe it will all be a non-issue, but we don't have to be the ones to test
this.
Michael
On 7/2/07 10:50 PM, "Hamish" <hamish_nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
Eric Patton wrote:
With the GNU GPL version 3 scheduled to be released tomorrow,
are there are plans on adopting this license for Grass?my 2c:
Sit on it for 6 months - a year (or two!) after release and see how the
dust settles before seriously raising the issue. Do not accept GPL2-
incompatible code until such time as that decision is made.
(aka don't be the guinea pig; keep the licensing terms clear & crisp)Eric:
Is copyright on GRASS code held by individual authors?
Markus:
In general yes.
Or is the copyright transferred to the GRASS project itself
when code is submitted?No. We don't have copyright transfer. This was discussed a lot
last year in terms of an OSGeo contribution agreement.It is suggested that co-copyright be granted to "The GRASS Development
Team", but as Frank pointed out that only exists as a moral entity, not
a legal one, so the issue is still open. Joining OSGeo means that
forming a legal non-profit GRASS Foundation (or OGCv2) for that is
mostly a redundant exercise, but there are reservations with handing GDT
copyright over to OSGeo wholesale (ie in the hands of folks who are
outside of the grass community [if only slightly]).Or, to put it another way, does adopting a different liscence
require the concent of every single contributor, or merely
a decision by the project steering committee?As far as I understand it, it requires the concent of every
single contributor *if* the new license is not compliant
with GPL. Note that most (all?) code contains GPL >= V2.And that GPL3 is not retroactive to already released versions.
Hamish
_______________________________________________
grass-psc mailing list
grass-psc@grass.itc.it
http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc
__________________________________________
Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
Director of Graduate Studies
School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Arizona State University
phone: 480-965-6213
fax: 480-965-7671
www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton