Yes, it would be great if the current maintainers would consider relicensing the bindings to LGPLv2.1+, which still requires anyone who redistributes the code to provide changes made.

(In reply to comment #0)
> Having the bindings AGPL3 licensed will make it impossible for proprietary
> applications to use them
Not true, there's a provision for this in the LICENSE file.

(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > Having the bindings AGPL3 licensed will make it impossible for proprietary
> > applications to use them
> Not true, there's a provision for this in the LICENSE file.

This is an important discussion, if you think the assumption included in this thread are not true, please provide all required information, otherwise the action to move this repository outside the GStreamer project may apply.

(In reply to comment #2)
> Not true, there's a provision for this in the LICENSE file.

Here's the reference:

You can request a usage exception:</p>
<ul>
	<li>On request, if your software is opensource, writing to <a href="mailto:ssundermann@gnome.org">ssundermann@gnome.org</a></li>
	<li>Acquiring a commercial license, writing to <a href="mailto:ssundermann@gnome.org">ssundermann@gnome.org</a></li>
</ul>


Basically what you state there in that licence file, is that you personally grant yourself the right to choose who is allowed to use gstreamer-sharp under the LGPL terms. There is conceptual problem with that. First if people need that grant, it's probably because there is a real need for it, then having to ask permission and leaving to one person the decision (there is not offence on judgment, just conceptually) limits freedom to use the binding. The second issue, is that each person to who you already granted LGPL right on this software are automatically granted the right to distribute again (this is what LGPL is about). Hence, the request is not required, as long as I make sure to download banshee source code first.

The first question I would ask is why do we care about the use of this software on server. Isn't it a marginal use of GStreamer and GStreamer Sharp today ?

My other concern is around the patent clause, it's very unsafe to distribute gstreamer-sharp, gstreamer and any patented codec all together for a patent holder. Even the fact that most of us uses the + variant is a problem to some of them. Companies in the the streaming industry do own patents, and have to play that game. If we use licences that clearly put at risk their patents, they will go back into using proprietary software (and raise the appliance price). Now, you'll come up with the offer to give commercial licence. This indeed may solve the problem, though I don't think it is coherent with the licensing scheme of GStreamer.

Thanks for the detailed explanation Nicolas :) Some further remarks...

> The second
> issue, is that each person to who you already granted LGPL right on this
> software are automatically granted the right to distribute again (this is what
> LGPL is about). Hence, the request is not required, as long as I make sure to
> download banshee source code first.

Yes, see also the previous discussion on #gstreamer and especially what "derivative work" in the context of copyright law means.

> The first question I would ask is why do we care about the use of this software
> on server. Isn't it a marginal use of GStreamer and GStreamer Sharp today ?

Their concern was about companies not giving back changes AFAIU from the IRC discussion, however the LGPL already does that.

> My other concern is around the patent clause, it's very unsafe to distribute
> gstreamer-sharp, gstreamer and any patented codec all together for a patent
> holder. Even the fact that most of us uses the + variant is a problem to some
> of them. Companies in the the streaming industry do own patents, and have to
> play that game. If we use licences that clearly put at risk their patents, they
> will go back into using proprietary software (and raise the appliance price).

Ack, also see license exceptions in GPL software like totem because of this.

> Now, you'll come up with the offer to give commercial licence. This indeed may
> solve the problem, though I don't think it is coherent with the licensing
> scheme of GStreamer.

There are multiple problems with this:
a) Each exception requires all copyright holders to agree. They solved this by requiring all contributions to be MIT licensed and only the overall thing to be AGPL licensed. While this seems to be ok legally, it's almost like a copyright assignment agreement, and nobody excepts this when contributing patches to a GStreamer project. You will have to make explicitly sure that everybody providing a patch is ok with providing it with a more liberal license than the software for which it is.
b) Each exception requires all copyright holders to agree. Good luck if one of you disappears for whatever reason.
c) Companies don't read LICENSE files. They see "AGPL" and run away.
d) The LICENSE file does not even mention the conditions for which you grant a license exception. When are you doing this, what do you require from people? Especially, is it non-discriminatory or do you only grant exceptions to companies you like?

Also see this for some further information http://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/documentation/licensing.html

I'll relicense my contributions to gstreamer-sharp under LGPL2.1+

That's fantastic Stephan, thanks a lot!

Who else needs to relicense their contributions before we can relicense the entire module?

Just me I guess. I'll do it just before we release v.next (0.99.1).

Thanks a lot Andrés. A statement here on the bug that you're relicensing your contributions to LGPL 2.1+ would probably be sufficient too (then someone else can fix up the files too if needed).

Also: +CC Bertrand Lorentz <bertrand.lorentz@gmail.com>

Could the license change be done in git already please?

Bertrand's ok is still pending.

Bertrand, could you respond whether you agree to relicense your contributions to gstreamer-sharp to LGPL v2.1+ ?

Sorry for the delay, I missed the original question to me.

I hereby agree to relicense my contributions to GStreamer-sharp to LGPL v2.1+.

Thanks a lot Bertrand!

Stephan: anything else missing?

Andrés was willing to relicense his stuff just before the next release, so I'm not sure about his commits.

Andrés, could you please confirm whether you are relicensing your contributions to LGPL or not?

(In reply to comment #19)
> Andrés, could you please confirm whether you are relicensing your contributions
> to LGPL or not?

In comment#10 I meant that I plan to contribute a patch that replaces all AGPL references with LGPL ones (from my past contributions, and other contributors' given their ack here), just before we release vNext, but I haven't had time yet.

Andrés: thanks, and sorry for being such a pain but my question was primarily about whether you are relicensing your contributions *now*. You can do this simply by stating something along the lines of 'I hereby relicense my contributions to gstreamer-sharp under the LGPL v2'.

Who actually fixes up the license headers later is independent of that. As soon as you agree, others can go ahead and help with that if they want to.

I would like to see this changed in git as soon as possible, so would be happy to help with that.

Isn't what I said in comment#20 equivalent to that? You're welcome to submit that patch.

If I thought that was sufficient, I wouldn't have asked :) Arguably, comment 10 and 20 indicate an intention to do it at a later date. I think it's best to be clear about these things rather than leave them open to interpretation.

Created attachment 277382 [details]
Scrap AGPL

Finally had time to do the patch, so then I don't need to do lawyery stuff in bugzilla ;)

(If this patch doesn't apply for you, it may be because it depends on some commits that are not yet in master, which I already sent to Stephan, give him a bit of time to review them.)

Thanks for the patch Andrés! I applied it, so all AGPL is now replaced with LGPL.

Brilliant, thanks!