GPL version 3

GPL version 3

[Yoshinori K. Okuji]

Hello,

I would like to discuss the possibility of migrating to GPL version 3. As you 
know, GPLv3 has been published, and all GNU software is recommended to 
migrate from GPLv2 to GPLv3.

When we look at only GRUB 2, there should be no problem. Nearly all code is 
copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, Inc., and the rest is licensed 
under GPLv2 or later (such as LZO). The disadvantage I can think of is only 
that we will not be able to reuse GPLv2-only code in the future (e.g. Linux), 
but I don't think this is so important, because we have always been producing 
code ourselves for technical reasons.

My question is about GRUB Legacy. As GRUB Legacy contains some GPLv2-only code 
from Linux, it is not easy to migrate to GPLv3. If we want to migrate, we 
must drop out such code, and rewrite that or port code from GRUB 2. Honestly, 
I don't think this is worth doing.

So I bet that GRUB Legacy should remain under GPLv2. But this can cause some 
problem potentially. Let's say, we find the same bug both in GRUB Legacy and 
in GRUB 2. In the current trend, the bug would be fixed in GRUB 2 sooner. But 
this fix may not be backported to GRUB Legacy as it is, once GRUB 2 migrates 
to GPLv3, because of the license incompatibility. Thus this means that the 
maintenance of GRUB Legacy would be harder.

Given the fact that nobody is really willing to maintain GRUB Legacy, we need 
to consider which is more important, migrating to GPLv3, or keeping it easy 
to backport fixes to GRUB Legacy from GRUB 2. I myself prefer to migrate to 
GPLv3, and just forget about GRUB Legacy, of which I have been dreaming all 
the time. But I think it would be fair to ask others' opinions before making 
the decision.

So what do you think?

Okuji

Re: GPL version 3

[Alex Roman]

On 04/07/07, Yoshinori K. Okuji <okuji@enbug.org> wrote:
> Given the fact that nobody is really willing to maintain GRUB Legacy, we need
> to consider which is more important, migrating to GPLv3, or keeping it easy
> to backport fixes to GRUB Legacy from GRUB 2. I myself prefer to migrate to
> GPLv3, and just forget about GRUB Legacy, of which I have been dreaming all
> the time. But I think it would be fair to ask others' opinions before making
> the decision.

This sounds like the best alternative. However, we have to think for
how long other people (e.g. distros) will use GRUB Legacy. So, I think
we should choose a milestone that will essentially mark the time when
GRUB Legacy is no longer maintained, such as when the first stable
version of GRUB 2 gets released, or when 'x' distros convert to
GRUB2... After that milestone, GRUB 2 would be free to move on to
GPLv3, without concern for GRUB Legacy...

That being said, we also need to encourage distros to migrate away
from GRUB Legacy, and what other better incentive than no longer
maintaining GRUB Legacy?


-- 
Alex Roman <alex.roman@gmail.com>

Re: GPL version 3

[Thomas Schwinge]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 917 bytes --]

Hello!

On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 09:40:15PM +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> So I bet that GRUB Legacy should remain under GPLv2. But this can cause some 
> problem potentially. Let's say, we find the same bug both in GRUB Legacy and 
> in GRUB 2. In the current trend, the bug would be fixed in GRUB 2 sooner. But 
> this fix may not be backported to GRUB Legacy as it is, once GRUB 2 migrates 
> to GPLv3, because of the license incompatibility. Thus this means that the 
> maintenance of GRUB Legacy would be harder.

I'm having a problem here.  The copyright for all contributions and
patches to GNU software (which both GNU GRUB legacy and GNU GRUB2 are) is
transferred to the FSF.  And why should the FSF (as the legal entity
``copyright holder'') disallow to apply (license) such patches under both
GPLv2 and GPLv3 conditions?  Whose understanding is wrong?  Is it mine?


Regards,
 Thomas

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: GPL version 3

[Jeroen Dekkers]

At Wed, 4 Jul 2007 21:40:15 +0200,
Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> So I bet that GRUB Legacy should remain under GPLv2. But this can cause some 
> problem potentially. Let's say, we find the same bug both in GRUB Legacy and 
> in GRUB 2. In the current trend, the bug would be fixed in GRUB 2 sooner. But 
> this fix may not be backported to GRUB Legacy as it is, once GRUB 2 migrates 
> to GPLv3, because of the license incompatibility. Thus this means that the 
> maintenance of GRUB Legacy would be harder.

Are you sure about this? Given that we've assigned copyright to the
FSF, the FSF can decide under which free software license to license
that code. So I don't really see why we can't release the same code
under GPLv2 or later in GRUB Legacy and under GPLv3 or later in GRUB2.

On the other hand, there have been 4 changelog entries for GRUB Legacy
in the past year, so we shouldn't really make a big deal out of
this. So IMO we should just go for GPLv3.

Jeroen Dekkers

Re: GPL version 3

[Jerone Young]

I think we should leave Grub Legacy GPL v2 and move Grub 2 to GPL v3.
Given Grub Legacy really has had little work on it and most distros
are maintaining their own patches anyway. With little to no work on
Grub Legacy going on anyway, no reason to create work for it :-) . I
see Grub Legacy dieing off once Grub 2 is ready for prime time.

Best to move the new license to the new upcoming code base and leave
the old code base be.


On 7/4/07, Yoshinori K. Okuji <okuji@enbug.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to discuss the possibility of migrating to GPL version 3. As you
> know, GPLv3 has been published, and all GNU software is recommended to
> migrate from GPLv2 to GPLv3.
>
> When we look at only GRUB 2, there should be no problem. Nearly all code is
> copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, Inc., and the rest is licensed
> under GPLv2 or later (such as LZO). The disadvantage I can think of is only
> that we will not be able to reuse GPLv2-only code in the future (e.g. Linux),
> but I don't think this is so important, because we have always been producing
> code ourselves for technical reasons.
>
> My question is about GRUB Legacy. As GRUB Legacy contains some GPLv2-only code
> from Linux, it is not easy to migrate to GPLv3. If we want to migrate, we
> must drop out such code, and rewrite that or port code from GRUB 2. Honestly,
> I don't think this is worth doing.
>
> So I bet that GRUB Legacy should remain under GPLv2. But this can cause some
> problem potentially. Let's say, we find the same bug both in GRUB Legacy and
> in GRUB 2. In the current trend, the bug would be fixed in GRUB 2 sooner. But
> this fix may not be backported to GRUB Legacy as it is, once GRUB 2 migrates
> to GPLv3, because of the license incompatibility. Thus this means that the
> maintenance of GRUB Legacy would be harder.
>
> Given the fact that nobody is really willing to maintain GRUB Legacy, we need
> to consider which is more important, migrating to GPLv3, or keeping it easy
> to backport fixes to GRUB Legacy from GRUB 2. I myself prefer to migrate to
> GPLv3, and just forget about GRUB Legacy, of which I have been dreaming all
> the time. But I think it would be fair to ask others' opinions before making
> the decision.
>
> So what do you think?
>
> Okuji
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Grub-devel mailing list
> Grub-devel@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
>

Re: GPL version 3

[Stefan Reinauer]

* Yoshinori K. Okuji <okuji@enbug.org> [070704 21:40]:
> Hello,
> 
> I would like to discuss the possibility of migrating to GPL version 3. As you 
> know, GPLv3 has been published, and all GNU software is recommended to 
> migrate from GPLv2 to GPLv3.

[..]

1. What are the pros and cons? A "discussion" as you call it should
   contain those, while your post clearly did not.

2. Since all people have to sign over their (C) to the FSF in a GNU
   project, can't the FSF just decide a switch to GPL3 at any time? (If
   not, what good would such a sign-over of rights be?)

Sorry if those are considered stupid or aggravating questions, but I
figured a license change is not something that you do easily, such as
updating to a newer version of some software, as it includes putting
yourself out, vulnerable not to an army of hackers but an army of
lawyers. It has to be considered very carefully.

Stefan.

-- 
coresystems GmbH • Brahmsstr. 16 • D-79104 Freiburg i. Br.
      Tel.: +49 761 7668825 • Fax: +49 761 7664613
Email: info@coresystems.de  • http://www.coresystems.de/

Re: GPL version 3

[Stefan Reinauer]

* Jeroen Dekkers <jeroen@vrijschrift.org> [070704 23:10]:
> At Wed, 4 Jul 2007 21:40:15 +0200,
> Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> > So I bet that GRUB Legacy should remain under GPLv2. But this can cause some 
> > problem potentially. Let's say, we find the same bug both in GRUB Legacy and 
> > in GRUB 2. In the current trend, the bug would be fixed in GRUB 2 sooner. But 
> > this fix may not be backported to GRUB Legacy as it is, once GRUB 2 migrates 
> > to GPLv3, because of the license incompatibility. Thus this means that the 
> > maintenance of GRUB Legacy would be harder.

These sound very much like house made problems, invented to push a
conversion to GPL3. Why would it be any harder to maintain Grub legacy?

1. There is no shared code between GRUB2 and Grub Legacy

2. Just have all the patches GPLv2 or later, and it will automatically
   be GPLv3 or GPLv2, whatever applies. 

> Are you sure about this? Given that we've assigned copyright to the
> FSF, the FSF can decide under which free software license to license
> that code. So I don't really see why we can't release the same code
> under GPLv2 or later in GRUB Legacy and under GPLv3 or later in GRUB2.
 
Yes, it is simply not the author's choice anymore, but the FSF's. At
least in some countries of the world.

Stefan

-- 
coresystems GmbH • Brahmsstr. 16 • D-79104 Freiburg i. Br.
      Tel.: +49 761 7668825 • Fax: +49 761 7664613
Email: info@coresystems.de  • http://www.coresystems.de/

Re: GPL version 3

[Stefan Reinauer]

* Jeroen Dekkers <jeroen@vrijschrift.org> [070704 23:10]:
> Are you sure about this? Given that we've assigned copyright to the
> FSF, the FSF can decide under which free software license to license
> that code. So I don't really see why we can't release the same code
> under GPLv2 or later in GRUB Legacy and under GPLv3 or later in GRUB2.

Oh the "v2 or later" and "v3 or later" clauses are more than critical
from a lawyers view. How can you have a contract partner and the FSF
decide upon the license / contract that applies on your code without
that contract existing yet. If, at some point in the future the FSF
would decide to add a clause to GPLv4 "The author of this software pays
a monthly fee of US$100 to the FSF" and the user of this software
decides to apply GPLv4 to the software because the author allowed it,
you would have to pay. The GPL is clearly designed to be a license that
protects the _user_ not the _author_ of a given piece of software.
No, of course I do not believe that the FSF will ever do something like
the above. But law is not about beliefs.

Stefan

-- 
coresystems GmbH • Brahmsstr. 16 • D-79104 Freiburg i. Br.
      Tel.: +49 761 7668825 • Fax: +49 761 7664613
Email: info@coresystems.de  • http://www.coresystems.de/

Re: GPL version 3

[Jeroen Dekkers]

At Thu, 5 Jul 2007 01:06:50 +0200,
Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> 
> * Jeroen Dekkers <jeroen@vrijschrift.org> [070704 23:10]:
> > Are you sure about this? Given that we've assigned copyright to the
> > FSF, the FSF can decide under which free software license to license
> > that code. So I don't really see why we can't release the same code
> > under GPLv2 or later in GRUB Legacy and under GPLv3 or later in GRUB2.
> 
> Oh the "v2 or later" and "v3 or later" clauses are more than critical
> from a lawyers view. How can you have a contract partner and the FSF
> decide upon the license / contract that applies on your code without
> that contract existing yet. If, at some point in the future the FSF
> would decide to add a clause to GPLv4 "The author of this software pays
> a monthly fee of US$100 to the FSF" and the user of this software
> decides to apply GPLv4 to the software because the author allowed it,
> you would have to pay. The GPL is clearly designed to be a license that
> protects the _user_ not the _author_ of a given piece of software.
> No, of course I do not believe that the FSF will ever do something like
> the above. But law is not about beliefs.

But there are two reasons the FSF can't do that. The first is that the
GPL says that future versions will be in the same spirit. Having a
monthly fee makes the software non-free, which is certainly not in the
same spirit.

The second problem is that if the FSF would release the software under
a non-free license, they would violate the copyright assignment
contract, because they agreed to keep the software free there.

So I don't think this is really a big problem.

Jeroen Dekkers

Re: GPL version 3

[Marco Gerards]

"Yoshinori K. Okuji" <okuji@enbug.org> writes:

Hi,

[...]

> So I bet that GRUB Legacy should remain under GPLv2. But this can cause some 
> problem potentially. Let's say, we find the same bug both in GRUB Legacy and 
> in GRUB 2. In the current trend, the bug would be fixed in GRUB 2 sooner. But 
> this fix may not be backported to GRUB Legacy as it is, once GRUB 2 migrates 
> to GPLv3, because of the license incompatibility. Thus this means that the 
> maintenance of GRUB Legacy would be harder.

Both are copyrighted by the FSF.  I am not a lawyer, but I don't think
copyright restrictions apply to the FSF.  I think the only restriction
the FSF has is that it should be GPLv2 or later, or at least Free
Software.  You can look this up on the copyright assignment papers.

Personally I do not care much about GRUB Legacy.  I do care about GRUB
2 and prefer we will use GPLv3.

--
Marco

Re: GPL version 3

[Robert Millan]

On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 12:58:42AM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> 
> 2. Just have all the patches GPLv2 or later, and it will automatically
>    be GPLv3 or GPLv2, whatever applies. 

This defeats the point of making GRUB GPLv3, because other parties can easily
avoid the additional restrictions by taking the GPLv2 version and appliing all
these 2-or-later patches.

I certainly don't want to contribute patches in this way, since I'm completely
against things like DRM or patent deals, and I don't want my code to be used
for these purposes.

-- 
Robert Millan

My spam trap is honeypot@aybabtu.com.  Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters.  Writing to it will get you added to my black list.

Re: GPL version 3

[Robert Millan]

On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 11:10:06PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> At Wed, 4 Jul 2007 21:40:15 +0200,
> Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> > So I bet that GRUB Legacy should remain under GPLv2. But this can cause some 
> > problem potentially. Let's say, we find the same bug both in GRUB Legacy and 
> > in GRUB 2. In the current trend, the bug would be fixed in GRUB 2 sooner. But 
> > this fix may not be backported to GRUB Legacy as it is, once GRUB 2 migrates 
> > to GPLv3, because of the license incompatibility. Thus this means that the 
> > maintenance of GRUB Legacy would be harder.
> 
> Are you sure about this? Given that we've assigned copyright to the
> FSF, the FSF can decide under which free software license to license
> that code. So I don't really see why we can't release the same code
> under GPLv2 or later in GRUB Legacy and under GPLv3 or later in GRUB2.

This also defeats the point of making GRUB 2 GPLv3, since when we backport
it to GRUB Legacy we're licensing this feature in GPLv2, and then it's no
longer protected against Treacherous Computing, etc.

-- 
Robert Millan

My spam trap is honeypot@aybabtu.com.  Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters.  Writing to it will get you added to my black list.

Re: GPL version 3

[Robert Millan]

On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 09:40:15PM +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> 
> So what do you think?

As said in my other mails in this thread, I don't think it makes sense to
switch to GPLv3 unless we do it all the way, including GRUB Legacy.

(and I'm all for switching rather than staying with GPLv2)

-- 
Robert Millan

My spam trap is honeypot@aybabtu.com.  Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters.  Writing to it will get you added to my black list.

Re: GPL version 3

[Robert Millan]

On Sat, Jul 07, 2007 at 09:06:49PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 09:40:15PM +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> > 
> > So what do you think?
> 
> As said in my other mails in this thread, I don't think it makes sense to
> switch to GPLv3 unless we do it all the way, including GRUB Legacy.
> 
> (and I'm all for switching rather than staying with GPLv2)

Oh, I'm sorry.  I missed the part of your mail that mentions GRUB Legacy
cannot easily migrate to GPLv3 because it uses GPLv2-only code.

In that case, I suggest we keep GRUB Legacy under GPLv2, but also make the
promise that GPLv3 code from GRUB 2 won't be relicensed to GPLv2 for use in
GRUB Legacy, because that makes GPLv3 useless.

-- 
Robert Millan

My spam trap is honeypot@aybabtu.com.  Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters.  Writing to it will get you added to my black list.

Re: GPL version 3

[Yoshinori K. Okuji]

Thank you for your replies. As my time is limited, I don't reply to individual 
messages, but I have read all of them. In my understanding, all long-term 
contributors have agreed (or not replied) for GPLv3, so, as an official 
representative of the GNU project, I conclude that we should migrate to 
GPLv3.

So GRUB 2 will be licensed under GPLv3. I keep GRUB Legacy as it is under 
GPLv2. (Anyway, I am not planning to release any new version of GRUB Legacy.)

Okuji

Re: GPL version 3

[Yoshinori K. Okuji]

On Saturday 14 July 2007 15:02, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> Thank you for your replies. As my time is limited, I don't reply to
> individual messages, but I have read all of them. In my understanding, all
> long-term contributors have agreed (or not replied) for GPLv3, so, as an
> official representative of the GNU project, I conclude that we should
> migrate to GPLv3.
>
> So GRUB 2 will be licensed under GPLv3. I keep GRUB Legacy as it is under
> GPLv2. (Anyway, I am not planning to release any new version of GRUB
> Legacy.)

So I have modified all the copyright notices, and now GRUB 2 is under GPLv3. I 
will make a new release in next weekend, if everything looks good.

Okuji

Re: GPL version 3

[Alex Roman]

So I assume all future patches will need to have their copyright
notices changed, correct?


On 21/07/07, Yoshinori K. Okuji <okuji@enbug.org> wrote:
> On Saturday 14 July 2007 15:02, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> > Thank you for your replies. As my time is limited, I don't reply to
> > individual messages, but I have read all of them. In my understanding, all
> > long-term contributors have agreed (or not replied) for GPLv3, so, as an
> > official representative of the GNU project, I conclude that we should
> > migrate to GPLv3.
> >
> > So GRUB 2 will be licensed under GPLv3. I keep GRUB Legacy as it is under
> > GPLv2. (Anyway, I am not planning to release any new version of GRUB
> > Legacy.)
>
> So I have modified all the copyright notices, and now GRUB 2 is under GPLv3.
> I
> will make a new release in next weekend, if everything looks good.
>
> Okuji
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Grub-devel mailing list
> Grub-devel@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
>


-- 
Alex Roman <alex.roman@gmail.com>

Re: GPL version 3

[Robert Millan]

On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 01:38:30AM +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> On Saturday 14 July 2007 15:02, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> > Thank you for your replies. As my time is limited, I don't reply to
> > individual messages, but I have read all of them. In my understanding, all
> > long-term contributors have agreed (or not replied) for GPLv3, so, as an
> > official representative of the GNU project, I conclude that we should
> > migrate to GPLv3.
> >
> > So GRUB 2 will be licensed under GPLv3. I keep GRUB Legacy as it is under
> > GPLv2. (Anyway, I am not planning to release any new version of GRUB
> > Legacy.)
> 
> So I have modified all the copyright notices, and now GRUB 2 is under GPLv3. I 
> will make a new release in next weekend, if everything looks good.

I don't think we're ready.  There are serious outstanding issues on LVM and
powerpc-ieee1275 systems (including Macs).  See the previous threads for
details.

-- 
Robert Millan

My spam trap is honeypot@aybabtu.com.  Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters.  Writing to it will get you added to my black list.

Re: GPL version 3

[Marco Gerards]

"Alex Roman" <alex.roman@gmail.com> writes:

> So I assume all future patches will need to have their copyright
> notices changed, correct?

Yes.

--
Marco

Re: GPL version 3

[Thomas Schwinge]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 502 bytes --]

Hello!

On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 10:04:34AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 01:38:30AM +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> > will make a new release in next weekend, if everything looks good.
> 
> I don't think we're ready.  There are serious outstanding issues on LVM and
> powerpc-ieee1275 systems (including Macs).  See the previous threads for
> details.

Perhaps enough other improvements warrant a new release nevertheless?  (I
don't know.)


Regards,
 Thomas

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

grub 1.96 (Re: GPL version 3)

[Robert Millan]

On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 03:56:12PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 10:04:34AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 01:38:30AM +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> > > will make a new release in next weekend, if everything looks good.
> > 
> > I don't think we're ready.  There are serious outstanding issues on LVM and
> > powerpc-ieee1275 systems (including Macs).  See the previous threads for
> > details.
> 
> Perhaps enough other improvements warrant a new release nevertheless?  (I
> don't know.)

Actually, these are both regressions from 1.95 :-/

  - LVM has at least one regression.  I introduced it in:

2007-05-07  Robert Millan  <rmh@aybabtu.com>

	* util/i386/pc/grub-probe.c: Add `grub-probe -t partmap' parameter to
	determine partition map module.
	* util/i386/pc/grub-install.in: Use this feature to decide which
	partition module to load, instead of hardcoding pc and gpt.

    Sam Morris has been working on it.  Not sure what the current status is.

  - powerpc-ieee1275 is broken on pegasos and (some?) powermacs, as of:

2007-02-21  Hollis Blanchard  <hollis@penguinppc.org>

	* kern/powerpc/ieee1275/init.c (HEAP_SIZE): Removed.
	(HEAP_LIMIT): New macro.
	(grub_claim_heap): Claim memory up to `heaplimit'.

2007-02-21  Hollis Blanchard  <hollis@penguinppc.org>

	* conf/powerpc-ieee1275.rmk (kernel_elf_LDFLAGS): Link at 64KB.
	* kern/powerpc/ieee1275/init.c (_end): Add declaration.
	(_start): Likewise.
	(grub_arch_modules_addr): Return address after `_end'.
	* util/powerpc/ieee1275/grub-mkimage.c: Include grub/misc.h.
	(load_modules): Use new parameter as `p_paddr' and `p_vaddr'.
	(add_segments): Calculate `_end' from phdr size and location.
	(ALIGN_UP): Moved to ...
	* include/grub/misc.h: here.
	* include/grub/powerpc/ieee1275/kernel.h (GRUB_IEEE1275_MOD_ALIGN):
	New macro.
	(GRUB_IEEE1275_MODULE_BASE): Removed.

    I gave a try at debugging this with Hollis' assisstance.  Check the
    corresponding thread for current status.

-- 
Robert Millan

My spam trap is honeypot@aybabtu.com.  Note: this address is only intended
for spam harvesters.  Writing to it will get you added to my black list.