Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

[ apologies if you receive this multiple times ] Hello, * Bruce Korb wrote on Wed, May 04, 2011 at 08:04:05PM CEST: > So, if I've not mis-stated nor missed anything, we only wait for Derek, > Paolo and Ralf. OK by me. Sorry for the delay, Ralf

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

[ apologies if you receive this multiple times ] * Reuben Thomas wrote on Wed, May 04, 2011 at 11:14:57AM CEST: > $ ls > */{acosl,asinl,atanl,cosl,expl,logl,sinl,sqrtl,tanl,isfinite,tmpfile,fflush,futimens,nanosleep,getgroups,tzset,strtoimax,strtoumax}.* > |xargs git log --pretty=format:%aN |sort

Dual Licensing for Apple App Store Distibution [Was Re: Licensing of modules for libposix]

On 7 May 2011, at 21:19, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 05/05/2011 07:23 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: >> This makes it a lot easier to distribute software through Apple's >> various AppStore channels under the more onerous terms they impose, >> while still having the freedom to share the actual code unde

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

On 05/05/2011 10:48 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: Bruce Korb wrote: ... Is it a "small" thing if a half dozen engineers spend days exchanging emails trying to figure it out? Not so small to me. Fortunately, this doesn't happen often, and once it does for a given module, it's not likely to happe

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

On 05/05/2011 07:23 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: This makes it a lot easier to distribute software through Apple's various AppStore channels under the more onerous terms they impose, while still having the freedom to share the actual code under the GPL. I'm afraid this would only be a Pyrrhic vic

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

Bruce Korb wrote: ... > Is it a "small" thing if a half dozen engineers spend days > exchanging emails trying to figure it out? Not so small to me. Fortunately, this doesn't happen often, and once it does for a given module, it's not likely to happen again, unless someone has a good argument

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

Hi Karl, On 4 May 2011, at 22:11, k...@freefriends.org (Karl Berry) wrote: >If you're the author (or if all the authors >agree), and you want to relicense your code, you still have that right, > > That is correct. The standard FSF copyright assignment "grants back" > the right to authors

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix: math functions

On 05/04/2011 12:18 PM, Bruno Haible wrote: The code is from Paolo Bonzini, based on some other source. That was glibc. Paolo

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

If you're the author (or if all the authors agree), and you want to relicense your code, you still have that right, That is correct. The standard FSF copyright assignment "grants back" the right to authors to do anything they like with their own code. So the kinds of scenarios you descri

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

On 05/04/2011 08:04 PM, Bruce Korb wrote: So, if I've not mis-stated nor missed anything, we only wait for Derek, Paolo and Ralf. Ok by me. Paolo

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

On 05/04/11 03:20, Jim Meyering wrote: However, adding a new name anywhere in source files for each new author who contributes a copyright-significant change would not be worth the trouble. What I think is abundantly clear is that a notation is needed regarding who has relicensing authority. I

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

Reuben Thomas writes: > $ ls > */{acosl,asinl,atanl,cosl,expl,logl,sinl,sqrtl,tanl,isfinite,tmpfile,fflush,futimens,nanosleep,getgroups,tzset,strtoimax,strtoumax}.* > |xargs git log --pretty=format:%aN |sort |uniq -c > 3 Ben Pfaff > 54 Bruno Haible > 1 Derek R. Price > 34 Er

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

On 05/04/11 08:51, Bruno Haible wrote: > We are asking your agreement to relax the license to LGPL for the files > > lib/nanosleep.c > lib/getgroups.c > Thanks for clarifying; and yes, those are fine for the LGPL.

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

Paul Eggert wrote: > I'm not sure what I'm being asked. We are asking your agreement to relax the license to LGPL for the files lib/nanosleep.c lib/getgroups.c Bruno -- In memoriam Henri Curiel

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

On 05/04/11 03:05, Reuben Thomas wrote: >> 39 Paul Eggert That's a bit terse; I'm not sure what I'm being asked.

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

Reuben Thomas wrote: > >  fflush, futimens > > These are Eric's. Eric? lib/fflush.c is also by me and Jim. I give permission to LGPL my contributions to this file. > >  nanosleep > > Bruno & Jim's. Bruno & Jim? lib/nanosleep.c is by Jim, Paul, Eric, and me. I give LGPL permission for my part.

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix: isfinite

Reuben Thomas wrote: > > isfinite, tmpfile > > are from Ben Pfaff, who gave his permission for relicensing in > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2010-12/msg00185.html lib/isfinite.c has changes from me as well. I give my permission to LGPL them. Bruno -- In memoriam Henri Curiel

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

Reuben Thomas wrote: > On 4 May 2011 10:37, Jim Meyering wrote: >> >> Copyright is covered by the notice at the top of every file. >> Authorship is another story. I've seen no reason to add the name >> of every "author" to each source file that's affected (and am >> strongly inclined never to do t

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix: math functions

Hello Reuben, > > functions: > > > acosl, asinl, atanl, cosl, expl, logl, sinl, sqrtl, tanl > > These modules all seem to come from Bruno You need to look at the history of the source code files in lib/: lib/acosl.c lib/asinl.c lib/atanl.c lib/cosl.c lib/expl.c lib/logl.c lib/sinl.c lib/sqrt

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

Reuben Thomas wrote: > it's all copyright the FSF, so why all the canvassing to relicense > anyway? The authors have a say on the code they wrote. If they contribute to a GPLed file and then someone - even from the FSF - changes it to LGPL license, they might be offended or frustrated. > Can't so

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

On 4 May 2011 10:14, Reuben Thomas wrote: > $ ls > */{acosl,asinl,atanl,cosl,expl,logl,sinl,sqrtl,tanl,isfinite,tmpfile,fflush,futimens,nanosleep,getgroups,tzset,strtoimax,strtoumax}.* > |xargs git log --pretty=format:%aN |sort |uniq -c Could you please reply to this thread, and for all modules,

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

On 4 May 2011 10:37, Jim Meyering wrote: > > Copyright is covered by the notice at the top of every file. > Authorship is another story. I've seen no reason to add the name > of every "author" to each source file that's affected (and am > strongly inclined never to do that). > That is meta data an

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix: strtoimax, strtoumax

Bruno Haible wrote: > Paul Eggert wrote: >> >> strtoimax, strtoumax >> > Paul's. Paul? >> >> These modules are clearly LGPLish, and I have no objection >> to relicensing them under the LGPL. > > Looking at the contributors of this modules' files in lib/ > $ gitk lib/strtoimax.c lib/strtoumax.c >

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix: strtoimax, strtoumax

Paul Eggert wrote: > >> strtoimax, strtoumax > > Paul's. Paul? > > These modules are clearly LGPLish, and I have no objection > to relicensing them under the LGPL. Looking at the contributors of this modules' files in lib/ $ gitk lib/strtoimax.c lib/strtoumax.c Jim's agreement is needed as well

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

Reuben Thomas wrote: > On 4 May 2011 10:03, Jim Meyering wrote: >>> the underlying problem appears to be that copyright holders are not >>> listed in the file headers. > > This needs to be addressed, because otherwise any package using gnulib > has to go back to gnulib git to determine authorship.

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:09:47AM +0100, Reuben Thomas wrote: > On 4 May 2011 10:03, Jim Meyering wrote: > >> Further, I've signed a copyright assignment for gnulib, so presumably > >> it's all copyright the FSF, so why all the canvassing to relicense > >> anyway? > > > > Sometimes, an author wil

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

On 4 May 2011 09:43, Jim Meyering wrote: > Reuben Thomas wrote: >> On 4 May 2011 09:08, Jim Meyering wrote: > getgroups, tzset Jim's. Jim? >>> >>> Relaxing to LGPL for those three modules is fine by me. >>> However, note that Paul is listed as coauthor of tzset.m4 >>> and Eric

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

On 4 May 2011 10:03, Jim Meyering wrote: > >> the underlying problem appears to be that copyright holders are not >> listed in the file headers. This needs to be addressed, because otherwise any package using gnulib has to go back to gnulib git to determine authorship. One expects to be able to d

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

Reuben Thomas wrote: > On 4 May 2011 09:43, Jim Meyering wrote: >> >> Very few people end up being listed as a gnulib module maintainer >> if they are not also an author (aka patch contributor). >> >> To determine "authorship", you must look at the commit logs: >> >>    $ git log --pretty=format:

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

On 4 May 2011 09:43, Jim Meyering wrote: > > Very few people end up being listed as a gnulib module maintainer > if they are not also an author (aka patch contributor). > > To determine "authorship", you must look at the commit logs: > >    $ git log --pretty=format:%aN lib/getgroups.c|sort |uniq

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

Reuben Thomas wrote: > On 4 May 2011 09:08, Jim Meyering wrote: >>> getgroups, tzset >>> >>> Jim's. Jim? >> >> Relaxing to LGPL for those three modules is fine by me. >> However, note that Paul is listed as coauthor of tzset.m4 >> and Eric as the other "Maintainer" in modules/getgroups. > > T

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

On 4 May 2011 09:08, Jim Meyering wrote: >> >>> getgroups, tzset >> >> Jim's. Jim? > > Relaxing to LGPL for those three modules is fine by me. > However, note that Paul is listed as coauthor of tzset.m4 > and Eric as the other "Maintainer" in modules/getgroups. That doesn't seem to matter, since

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

Reuben Thomas wrote: > Going through the list provided by Bruno: > >> Among the modules that will be part of libposix, i.e. that are listed as >> gnulib modules for some POSIX functions or headers, the following are >> currently under GPL license: ... >> nanosleep > > Bruno & Jim's. Bruno & Jim?

Re: Licensing of modules for libposix

On 05/04/11 00:27, Reuben Thomas wrote: >> strtoimax, strtoumax > Paul's. Paul? These modules are clearly LGPLish, and I have no objection to relicensing them under the LGPL.

Licensing of modules for libposix

Going through the list provided by Bruno: > Among the modules that will be part of libposix, i.e. that are listed as > gnulib modules for some POSIX functions or headers, the following are > currently under GPL license: > functions: > acosl, asinl, atanl, cosl, expl, logl, sinl, sqrtl, tanl T