From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7519003929980365582==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Simon Josefsson Subject: Re: License question: Why GPLv2 only? Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 09:21:16 +0200 Message-ID: <87bppyais3.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> In-Reply-To: <1242111485.2970.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> List-Id: To: ofono@ofono.org --===============7519003929980365582== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Marcel Holtmann writes: > Hi Simon, > >> Interesting project. I read some of the source code you have published, >> and some files are licensed under the GPLv2 or later: >> = >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=3Dnetwork/ofono/ofono.git;a=3Dblob;f=3Dgdbus/ma= inloop.c;hb=3DHEAD >> = >> However, many files are licensed under the GPLv2 only, with no option of >> using later license versions, for example: >> = >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=3Dnetwork/ofono/ofono.git;a=3Dblob;f=3Dgatchat/= gatchat.c;hb=3DHEAD >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=3Dnetwork/ofono/ofono.git;a=3Dblob;f=3Dsrc/dbus= -gsm.c;hb=3DHEAD >> = >> Has it been a conscious decision to use GPLv2-only for some files? > > these are on purpose this way. The files gdbus/*.[ch] contain the > original license and copyright from the BlueZ project, because they are > copied from there. > > All the rest of the oFono source code is GPLv2 only. Ah, thanks for explaining. Maybe these details could be recorded in documentation somewhere. When/if will be packaged for a GNU/Linux distribution, it will become relevant. >> Are you aware that using GPLv2-only makes your work license incompatible >> with (L)GPLv3 work? If I understand correctly, you cannot combine any >> of your GPLv2-only work with code licensed under the LGPLv3 or GPLv3. >> The GPLv2-only license is not compatible with the (L)GPLv3 license, see: >> = >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility >> = >> I would humbly request that you use GPLv2-or-later for code instead, to >> allow you, and everyone else, to combine your work with (L)GPLv3 code. > > That is not really up to me and there are concerns with the GPLv3 > license that hasn't been addressed properly at this moment. I am not a > lawyer and I am bound by company policy in this regard. Sure, I understand. > Even if we would switch to GPLv3 license, then we can not be linked with > GPLv2 or LGPLv2 only code. Btw, using the LGPLv2+ would allow for combining with any *GPLv* license. Of course, that wouldn't work for the BlueZ code. /Simon --===============7519003929980365582==--