GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 159134
Last modified: 2014-07-21 12:38:47 UTC
according to COPYING, gtksourceview is GPL.
Now looking for /* headers */ in .c:
gtksourceview/gtksourcebuffer.c is GPL
gtksourceview/gtksourceview.c is _L_GPL
so what's the correct license ?
currently, there's a gtksourceview python wrapper in python-gnome, which is
known to be LGPL. If gtksourceview is GPL, it's conflicting.
We (the current maintainers) would like to change to the gtksourceview license
to be LGPL. But the original authors used GPL. We should ask all the
contributors the permission for the license change. Is anyone volunteering to
get all the permissions?
Is anyone volunteering to get all the permissions?
You have my permission to change everything to LGPL.
I can do this. Contact me on irc for details.
Since this may get some traction soon, I take the occasion to state that I'm ok
relicensing my (very small) contributions to LGPL.
*** Bug 404627 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Created attachment 83239 [details]
Contributors (extracted from ChangeLog)
You have my permission to relicense my contributions.
To be honest, I would prefer the GPL. However, as far as I can remember, my contibution(s) has (have) been trivial. You therefor have my permission to relicense my contribution(s).
I would prefer the GPL but as my contribution was so small ...
You have my permission to relicense my contributions.
You can relicense my small bits to LGPL.
Created attachment 83298 [details]
Here is an updated list without the translators and without the people who already agreed with the change. I also added a small description of the contributions, so that is easier to track if that code has been removed already.
Beside as stated at the start of this bug some files (most actually) already are under LGPL, I am not sure if we need or not to check those contributions.
Some are also oneliner fixes, typos etc... can this be removed, right?
What about lang files?
I think I made some very tiny patch that added XUL as a XML type for syntax highlighting a long time ago, so just signing off my OK for that line of code (if I even wrote the patch, maybe I just submitted the bug report about it).
I made a tiny contribution and LGPL is fine with me!
Anything I did can be LGPLed.
I'm fine with LGPL fwiw
I was the first maintainer of gtksourceview and for some years ago someone asked med to change from gpl to lgpl and that was okey for me :-) Maybe some file was forgoten to be changed that time.
But for me it is 100% okey to change all my code to LGPL.
Created attachment 90162 [details]
Sorry for spam, but this file cost too much time to lose it. This is the list of people who need to be contacted about relicensing lang files. People who agreed to LGPL are not in this list, i.e. it is not the list of all authors/contributors, so if you don't find yourself in the list then it means you are a nice person too :)
You have my permission to relicense my contributions to LGPL.
I have 2 questions:
1. Could someone please clarify why a relicensing from GPL to LGPL is preferred or required? If I recall correctly, the FSF recommends against using the LGPL.
2. Could someone please explain why the language files would have to be relicensed as LGPL too? I think they're interpreted at run time, right? So, my IANAL-guess would be that it is legally OK for them to stay GPL while the gtksourceview library itself becomes LGPL?
You have my permission to relicense my small contribution to LGPL.
Evert: we would like to relicense to LGPL because most of the libraries in GNOME are LGPL and since licensing it to GPL was mostly an error on my side (when I started writing code for gtksourceview together with Gustavo, we thought GtkSourceView was LGPL, as you can see from the fact some of the files we wrote have an LGPL header).
About the lang files, since we are not sure how the license stuff works with them, we prefer to be on the safe side and relicense them as LGPL.
I grant permission to relicense sql.lang to LGPL.
I see your LGPL and will raise you an MIT license. Down with restrictions on how freely available code can be used!
("I grant permission to relicense all changes I have made in gtksourceview under the LGPL" if it wasn't clear.)
you have my permisson too!! let us all share and share everything with every one! viva LGPL! :)
Hey everyone, glad to see this baby is still up and rocking. I am almost positive that the offending SourceBuffer code with the GPL license was there from the very first version written by Mikael Hermansson. He and I talked in the early days about it being LGPL and I thought that change had been made throughout the code. Apparently I was wrong. Anyway, this is me giving permission. I will also try and keep in touch about this, as Editor widgets are still my first love.
Not that i recall which lang file I have contributed to but as I got an email, you have my permission to relicense under LGPL
You have permission to relicense anything I have contributed.
Hey I remembered my login! And yes, my permission is also granted, in case it's needed (Andrew pointed out I'm on the list of authors too).
I submitted R.lang file. I agree with license change. (Holds also for any other files I submitted, just in case).
Of course lua.lang, which I originally submitted, may also be used under LGPL. The only reason it was GPL is because the other language files were GPL anyway.
I hereby grant permission to relicense all my contributions to any license you find suitable (wither now or in the future).
LGPL is fine for me.
You have my permission to relicense php.lang (and ldif.lang if it's still around) to LGPL.
Also you can update my mail address to firstname.lastname@example.org (@libero.it is no longer operative).
You have my permission to use my contributions under LGPL.
Eric Norige <email@example.com> (also <firstname.lastname@example.org>)
I give my permission to change the license of my contributions to gtksourceview from the GPL to the LGPL.
I give my permission to change the license of my contributions to gtksourceview
Created attachment 161407 [details] [review]
Bug 159134 - Relicense as LGPL
The only files that still have GPL are:
I emailed email@example.com and received a "The email account that you tried to reach does not exist" error.
Review of attachment 161407 [details] [review]:
BTW the gseal-gtk-compat.h is already LGPL
@nacho: turns out that gseal-gtk-compat.h was missing a Lesser so my search found it, this has been fixed.
To close this bug, here are the missing authors:
Thierry Moisan (pascal.lang)
Rowan Lewis (php.lang)
Archit Baweja (ruby.lang)
Gabriel Bauman (ruby.lang)
Jesse van den Kieboom (ruby.lang)
I give my permission to change the license of my contributions to gtksourceview, to LGPL.
You have my permission to relicense my gtksourceview contributions to LGPL.
I give you my permission to change the license of my contributions in gtksourceview to LGPL
I dug into the history for pascel.lang before the file was moved. The only commit I could find for Thierry Moisan is a trivial one that adds a single ','.
The contribution from Rowan Lewis was in this bug:
From the suggested changes in that bug only the part of adding 6 missing keywords was applied:
Decimal highlighting was added later in a different form and author:
Thierry Moisan accepts to relicense his contributions to GtkSourceView from GPL to LGPL:
One remaining person: Rowan Lewis (php.lang)
I assume you're choosing the LGPL v3+ right ?
No, LGPL v2+ for now. We may relicense to LGPL v3+ or v4+ in the future. I don't know why we still keep the version 2, there should maybe be a GNOME goal about migrating to GPL and LGPL v3+ for all GNOME softwares (there was probably a debate about this when the GPL 3 was released, and probably some developers didn't agree, like Linus for the kernel).
(In reply to comment #54)
> No, LGPL v2+ for now. We may relicense to LGPL v3+ or v4+ in the future.
It seems to me, if we're moving away from the GPL, at least move to a current version of the LGPL.
> don't know why we still keep the version 2, there should maybe be a GNOME goal
> about migrating to GPL and LGPL v3+ for all GNOME softwares (there was probably
> a debate about this when the GPL 3 was released, and probably some developers
> didn't agree, like Linus for the kernel).
IIRC, Linus ultimately stated that it was a mistake, and they should have gone with v3+. In any case, we should do what's best for software freedom.
I think that if the license choosen is LGPLv2+, you would be free to upgrade it to LGPLv3+ at your discretion. I mean, you have the source which was under LGPLv2+ which says
"you can redistribute it [...] under the terms of the GNU General Public License [..] , either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
Shouldn't this mean that the copyright owner gives you the right to distribute under LGPLv3+ if you want?
(In reply to comment #56)
> I think that if the license choosen is LGPLv2+, you would be free to upgrade it
> to LGPLv3+ at your discretion. I mean, you have the source which was under
> LGPLv2+ which says
> "you can redistribute it [...] under the terms of the GNU General Public
> License [..] , either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later
> Shouldn't this mean that the copyright owner gives you the right to distribute
> under LGPLv3+ if you want?
I don't want to get into a licensing argument with you. You have the problem backwards. It's not that _i_ can't upgrade to LGPL3+, it's that by choosing LGPL 3+ it ensures the license can't be downgraded to v2 by other parties. This means we as a community benefit from the added protections and compatibilities of LGPL3+.
(In reply to comment #51)
> The contribution from Rowan Lewis was in this bug:
> From the suggested changes in that bug only the part of adding 6 missing
> keywords was applied:
For such a small change the copyright doesn't really hold. It is generally explained in documents describing how to apply the GPL. For example in the GNU Coding Standards:
"You don’t need papers for changes of a few lines here or there, since they are not significant for copyright purposes."
So this bug is finally fixed: