After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 670727 - Please clarify license of some files
Please clarify license of some files
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: GnuCash
Classification: Other
Component: General
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Christian Stimming
Geert Janssens
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2012-02-24 09:56 UTC by Vincent Untz
Modified: 2018-06-29 23:06 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Vincent Untz 2012-02-24 09:56:14 UTC
The openSUSE legal team had some questions about the license of some files, which seem to have a GPL-2.0 (only) header.

Those are:

packaging/gnucash-2.1.x.ebuild                
src/gnome-utils/gnc-dense-cal.h               
src/import-export/csv/gnc-csv-gnumeric-popup.c
src/import-export/csv/gnc-csv-gnumeric-popup.h
src/import-export/csv/gnc-csv-gnumeric-popup.c

The ebuild file is obviously no real deal.

src/gnome-utils/gnc-dense-cal.h: since the .c file has a GPL-2.0+ header, I assume the .h is actually under the same license. This should be checked and fixed.

src/import-export/csv/gnc-csv-gnumeric-popup.[ch], src/import-export/csv/gnc-csv-gnumeric-popup.c: those files are coming from gnumeric, which is GPL-2.0+, so I think the header should be updated to reflect this.
Comment 1 Christian Stimming 2012-02-24 20:18:07 UTC
src/gnome-utils/gnc-dense-cal.h is GPLv2 and GPLv3, as all of the files authored by Josh Sled. I've just committed this to SVN.

But for the files from gnumeric: Where does it say it's more than just GPLv2? In the files itself gnumeric/src/gui-util.h (where src/import-export/csv/gnc-csv-gnumeric-popup.h is copied from) it doesn't say this, and in the top-level COPYING it doesn't say that, too http://git.gnome.org/browse/gnumeric/tree/COPYING . Can you clarify this?
Comment 2 Vincent Untz 2012-02-27 12:31:16 UTC
Let's cc Morten, who will likely know better for the gnumeric side.
Comment 3 Morten Welinder 2012-02-27 13:49:55 UTC
The Gnumeric [bug 463247] and Goffice [bug 463248] situation is that there
are indeed parts that are gplv2.

We have permission to go to gplv2+gplv3 from all copyright holders of
gplv2 parts except Novell.  Vincent, can you help on that front?  (We
have a tentative promise from Michael Meeks to help on that front too.
It's just that I have been entirely too lazy on that front.)
Comment 4 Vincent Untz 2012-02-27 14:00:23 UTC
Sure, I'll ping people.
Comment 5 Michael Meeks 2012-02-27 15:11:12 UTC
I poked Ciaran for some input :-)
Comment 6 Michael Meeks 2012-02-29 09:27:23 UTC
So - you have formal permission from Novell/SUSE business & legal to re-license the goffice code to a "GPLv2 and GPLv3" license, if you want an E-mail of that form sent somewhere let me know :-) I now notice you want the same for the gnumeric code, let me check on that too.
Comment 7 Michael Meeks 2012-02-29 10:43:57 UTC
And also formal permission Novell/SUSE business & legal to re-license
the gnumeric code to a "GPLv2 and GPLv3" license.

Hope that helps :-)
Comment 8 Christian Stimming 2012-02-29 20:53:03 UTC
In gnucash SVN, we've now changed all noted files accordingly.
Comment 9 John Ralls 2018-06-29 23:06:52 UTC
GnuCash bug tracking has moved to a new Bugzilla host. This bug has been copied to https://bugs.gnucash.org/show_bug.cgi?id=670727. Please update any external references or bookmarks.