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 741892 - Calculator is nondistributable due to license incompatibility with MPFR
Calculator is nondistributable due to license incompatibility with MPFR
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: gnome-calculator
Classification: Core
Component: general
3.15.x
Other Linux
: Normal blocker
: ---
Assigned To: gcalctool maintainers
gcalctool maintainers
3.16
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2014-12-23 03:05 UTC by Michael Catanzaro
Modified: 2016-03-03 20:46 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
Convey Calculator under GPLv3+ (52.96 KB, patch)
2014-12-23 04:57 UTC, Michael Catanzaro
none Details | Review
Convey Calculator under GPLv3+ (52.96 KB, patch)
2014-12-23 04:59 UTC, Michael Catanzaro
none Details | Review
Convey Calculator under GPLv3+ (52.96 KB, patch)
2014-12-23 05:00 UTC, Michael Catanzaro
committed Details | Review
Relicense source files to GPLv3+ (36.23 KB, patch)
2014-12-23 13:47 UTC, Michael Catanzaro
none Details | Review

Description Michael Catanzaro 2014-12-23 03:05:28 UTC
MPFR is LGPLv3+, which cannot legally be linked with a GPLv2+ program like Calculator. We have to bump Calculator to GPLv3+ or else revert all the MPFR work.

The good news is that since Calculator is GPLv2+ rather than plain GPLv2, we can unilaterally bump the license version without the rigamarole of contacting all past contributors for permission, so this is really simple to fix provided we're OK with that license bump. (Needless to say, that is certainly my recommendation.)
Comment 1 Michael Catanzaro 2014-12-23 04:50:05 UTC
Oh, and we have one choice: we can choose whether to leave the source code files as GPLv2+ or bump them to GPLv3+ (it's fine to leave them as GPLv2+ since we just say that we choose to use them as GPLv3); my vote would be to bump the license version on each source file, but it does not matter.

But we must change the COPYING file and the license version in the about dialog.
Comment 2 Michael Catanzaro 2014-12-23 04:57:02 UTC
Created attachment 293217 [details] [review]
Convey Calculator under GPLv3+

Minimally-acceptable patch, changes the overall license without relicensing any source files. (Do we want to relicense the source files or not?)
Comment 3 Michael Catanzaro 2014-12-23 04:59:28 UTC
Created attachment 293218 [details] [review]
Convey Calculator under GPLv3+
Comment 4 Michael Catanzaro 2014-12-23 05:00:50 UTC
Created attachment 293219 [details] [review]
Convey Calculator under GPLv3+
Comment 5 Michael Catanzaro 2014-12-23 13:47:36 UTC
Created attachment 293260 [details] [review]
Relicense source files to GPLv3+

This patch is optional -- it can be applied on top of the last one, applying stronger legal protections to the code, at the cost of the ability to copy code from Calculator into GPLv2+ projects.
Comment 6 PioneerAxon 2014-12-25 15:23:46 UTC
Review of attachment 293219 [details] [review]:

Committed.. Thanks.. :)
Comment 7 PioneerAxon 2014-12-25 15:34:46 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> Created an attachment (id=293260) [details] [review]
> Relicense source files to GPLv3+
> 
> This patch is optional -- it can be applied on top of the last one, applying
> stronger legal protections to the code, at the cost of the ability to copy code
> from Calculator into GPLv2+ projects.

Ability to copy code to other GPLV2+ projects is "good to have" in Calculator code.
But, I don't have any knowledge about legality of code license to decide whether we need this patch, or we can skip it.

Can someone with proper background help out here?
Comment 8 Michael Catanzaro 2014-12-26 15:59:09 UTC
(In reply to comment #7)
> Ability to copy code to other GPLV2+ projects is "good to have" in Calculator
> code.
> But, I don't have any knowledge about legality of code license to decide
> whether we need this patch, or we can skip it.
> 
> Can someone with proper background help out here?

It's fine for source code files to specify a lower GPL version than the license of the application. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html and in particular http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility for more information on license compatibility.

I'm going to close this bug since the legal issue has been resolved. My final patch can still be applied -- or not -- as you please.