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 681834 - License issue (GPL-2.0 vs GPL-2.0+)
License issue (GPL-2.0 vs GPL-2.0+)
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: gnome-control-center
Classification: Core
Component: general
unspecified
Other Windows
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Control-Center Maintainers
Control-Center Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2012-08-14 12:53 UTC by Dominique Leuenberger
Modified: 2012-11-12 16:00 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Dominique Leuenberger 2012-08-14 12:53:20 UTC
originally downstream reported: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=775842

           Summary: GPL-2.0 (only) files found in GPL-2.0+ licensed
                    gnome-control-center 3.4.2

gnome-control-center-3.4.2/panels/background/cc-background-xml.c
gnome-control-center-3.4.2/panels/background/cc-background-xml.h

/*
* Authors: Rodney Dawes
* Bastien Nocera
*
* Copyright 2003-2006 Novell, Inc. (www.novell.com)
* Copyright 2011 Red Hat Inc.
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License
* as published by the Free Software Foundation
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
* GNU General Public License for more details.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
* along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
* Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Street #330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
*
*/

If these files are compiled with the rest of the package (predominantly
GPL-2.0+) the license of the resulting binary will be GPL-2.0, not GPL-2.0+ (at
least according to the FSF guidelines).

Would it be feasible to have those files relicensed to either GPL-2.0+ to match
the license of the rest of the package, or to some other GPL-2.0+ compatible
license? Upstream for the files (not sure who this is on Red Hat's side) should
comment.
Comment 1 André Klapper 2012-08-15 08:39:46 UTC
dobey, hadess: 
Are you fine with relicensing your two files to GPL-2.0+?
Comment 2 Rodney Dawes 2012-08-15 12:49:39 UTC
My understanding is you'll need to ask Novell's and Red Hat's legal departments for permission to relicense, as those are whom the copyrights are assigned to.
Comment 3 Bastien Nocera 2012-08-15 17:10:13 UTC
Unless I'm mistaken, the only portions of code left from Rodney would be the cc_background_xml_load_xml_internal() function. The rest of the code comes from Thomas Wood and myself (and 2 trivial one-liners from AlexL and Cosimo).

Michael, can you check on this re-licensing question? It's all fine from our (RH and gnome-c-c maintainers) side.
Comment 4 Michael Meeks 2012-11-12 16:00:39 UTC
Thanks so much Bastien - Ciaran provided approval for this too; so I assume that we're good to go with a GPLv2+ in this instance, nice to have it consistent.

I pushed the change to master.

Thanks !