sosreport
Replies: 5 comments 7 replies
-
|
Ack from me - we already have it specified in the spec file: License: GPL-2.0-or-later So for the sake of consistency, my vote is yes to the change. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This directly conflicts with a clarification we made years ago - see #1263 (comment) - tagging @bmr-cymru for visibility on if there is any further context to add beyond that comment/thread. We've never intended to be GPL-2+, just GPL-2. We can certainly talk about consciously making that choice, but I'd prefer we have more legally-minded folks at least weigh in on the ramifications of doing so. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Ack, I'm a relative newbie to the project, so thanks for the clarification. Obviously, recently we changed the license in the spec file and the at the same time in the snap to say GPL-2+, hence I thought (possibly wrongly) that was the licensing we were adhering to. With the linting and extra checks coming with the Debian project, this then came to light. Happy yo continue the discussion, and we can alter the copyright to be consistent with what we need. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yeah, the spec file change was just a header update to align with Fedora formatting expectations, but we/I should have caught the schism then. I didn't because the spec file already had "GPL2+", which traces all the way back to the lovely To date, we have in terms of function, been "GPLv2 only" - not so much by way of conscious choice (like the Linux kernel) but simply because licensing isn't on most contributor's minds for a tool like sos. Let's call it like it is - we're a relatively small (though critically important to many use cases) project and by that nature we generally don't encounter the kind of situations that require legal-savvy folks to be involved. There were a couple times during my tenure at Red Hat that I had to reach out to the legal team for input and, while always helpful, the conversations always had an air of "wait, who are you? What's this sos thing?" to them. That being said, I'm personally not a fan of the "or any later version you choose" style of licensing. We should have one consistent version across the project - though I'm certainly not dying on that hill and can be convinced otherwise. In my mind, this conversation should be "do we keep with GPLv2 only, or convert to GPLv3 (only)" and make whatever changes we need to from there (e.g. correcting the spec file if we decide on the former). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
based on what I see at the moment
So, based on this, we seem to be inconsistent at the moment, and whether we want a more consistent behaviour in this? Anyhow, I don't have preference, the key thing is to be consistent, and then go from there. We can then make the relevant changes across the dists packages with whatever is decided. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Just double checking, if we revert to just GPL-2 we only have these files that |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks Jake for holding up here, I havent realized the consequences when reviewing the PR. Indeed, we should stick to one GPL version for any whole piece of software / program that we develop. Two parts of the same program can not have different licenses, per https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html . So we should chose from either GPLv2 xor GPLv3 and should not have the "confusing" I have read several articles and comparisons of GPLv2 and GPLv3 and - while I would see some features of GPLv3 being beneficial - I do not see any "killer feature" that would legitimize the license change to GPLv3 - for I will check a bit around internally in Red Hat, to seek for some other point of view, so I might come with some ideas or arguments later on. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Cycling around here - following this discussion and some follow up on IRC, I think we're aligned that we will clarify as "GPLv2 only", correct @arif-ali @pmoravec ? If so, I'd like to see if it's possible to get the necessary corrections in place for 4.8.0 (I know, very short window here). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
yup, sounds good to me. it just means we got to change a couple of |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Good by me to update the existing PR. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
ACK with GPL-2 only from me. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Hi folks,
This past week, we were approached about the stale version of
sosin Debian (It was still 4.0), and the fact it doesn't have a maintainer anymore; we are now planning to take this over, and submitted the first update for 4.7.2 which should help us to move things forward.Now, one of the things debian package has is the
debian/copyrightfile, which defined the files which have the relevant licenses.Now, as part of the upload checks they do, the
lrccommand is run fromlicensereconpackage, and verifies the license based on this.As part of this, we have defined that we are GPL-2+, however the preamble of all or most of the code pieces show GPL-2 as per the wiki suggestions in the contribution guidelines. as we state
version 2 of the GNU General Public License., and it should beversion 2 or later of the GNU General Public License.I order for the licensecheck to succeed we need to ensure that all the files are consistent, or we specify in the copyright for the relevant files.
If the team are happy for us to change all the files to say
or later, then I can make this changethoughts?
For reference, below is the output of the
lrccommand, after we fixed thedebian/copyrightsemantics and ensured everything was GPL-2+ (which I will be opening PR soon, once everything is merged downstream)Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions