On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:34:40 +0000 "Dr. David Kirkby" <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote:
> On 02/13/12 05:19 PM, Keshav Kini wrote: > > If I understand correctly, William's point is that simply placing a > > copy of the GPL, with a version number attached or otherwise, with a > > "or any later version" included or otherwise, in the program's > > source code is not equivalent to a declaration of licensing under > > the GPL of a particular version, even if said copy of the GPL > > specifies a particular version of the GPL which said copy > > constitutes. Further, Michael Abshoff's comment at > > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3043 is that the FSF's > > interpretation of what license the software is under if it simply > > includes some copy of the GPL in its source code but does not > > declare itself to be under that license is that the software is > > under that GPL copy's declared version and any later version, > > regardless of whether the text "or any later version" appears in > > said copy of the GPL. > > > > (Of course, I don't vouch for any of these statements - just trying > > to clarify the discussion.) > > > > -Keshav > > > > I can understand and agree with Alex's comments > > ============================= > Both the version of gfan that's currently in Sage (0.3) and the > latest version (0.4plus) have a file COPYING which is just the text > of GPL version 2. I would say that's pretty clear, and it should be > in the file SPKG.txt. ============================= > > I would interpret Alex as saying that's version 2, and only version 2. > > I've no idea how Michael Abshoff can say the FSF consider that code > is licensed under version X+, even if you include a license with > version X, and no comment about later versions. That makes no sense > to me, and I've no idea where Micheal got that from. He has not > provided any evidence to back up that dubious claim. See here for instance: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version_of_the_GPL.2FLGPL_my_package_is_under.3F Quoting from item 4 in that answer: If neither the source, nor the upstream composed documentation says anything about the license version, then it could be under _ANY_ version of the GPL. The version listed in COPYING is irrelevant from this perspective. Technically it could be under any license, but if all we have to go by is COPYING, we'll use COPYING to imply that it is under the GPL, all versions (GPL+). > I think we could argue this all night. I for one think Sage is on > dodgy ground license-wise. Jeroen Demeyer is even more adamant there > are legal issues. > > William is happy. IMHO, the tone on sage-devel has been deteriorating lately. Please try not to contribute to the noise this way. Several people have tried to give helpful responses to your initial claim. Repeating the same point over and over without looking anything up is not productive. On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:42:27 +0000 "Dr. David Kirkby" <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > But currently SPKG.txt and COPYING state version 2 only. > > SPKG.txt for Mercurial states > > "== License == > * GNU General Public License version 2, or any later version > " > > but the COPYING file does not state "or any later version". Some > programs do (like znpoly), but Mercurial does not. Nor does gfan - > despite you say you know different. Nor does the COPYING file in > 'moin', though SPKG.txt says it is "GPLv2+". Mercurial source code clearly states GPLv2+. They also have it on their web site: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/License Same for moinmoin: http://moinmo.in/GPL Cheers, Burcin -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
