--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
[PATCH 0/1] gnu: Add ccal [And asking for help on license issue]. |
|
Date: |
Tue, 13 Oct 2020 16:09:15 +0800 |
From: Peng Mei Yu <pengmeiyu@riseup.net>
Hi everyone,
This patch adds ccal, a program for Chinese calendar. This program has a
weird license issue.
The program's original license was GPL v2+, then the author changed part of
the source code to LGPL under the request of third-party users. You can find
the email discussion here:
https://github.com/liangqi/kcalendar/blob/c77098a1f3133878743632cdd5788377161610a1/README#L57
The problem is within the LGPL license notice in source code. The LGPL
license published by FSF can be one of three choices:
- GNU Library General Public License, version 2.0
- GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1
- GNU Lesser General Public License, version 3.0
1. In the license notice sections of source code, the author wrote:
mphases.cpp:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
Distributed under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
License, or (at your option) any later version.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
"GNU Lesser General Public License" and "version 2" is not a valid
combination. "GNU Lesser General Public License" can be either version 2.1 or
version 3.0.
2. In the README file, the author also missspelled "GNU Lesser General Public
License". "GNU Less General Public License" is not a valid license name.
README:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
License, or (at your option) any later version. Portions related to
computing of Chinese dates are distributed under the terms of the GNU
Less General Public License as published by the Free Software
Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
any later version.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
3. The COPYING.LESSER file bundled with source code is a copy of LGPL v3.
This is a total mess.
I think the author's intention was to release the code with "GNU Library
General Public License, version 2.0 or any later version". However what he
wrote in the code is "GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the
Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
any later version." I think LGPL v2.1 and v3.0 is compatible with this
sentence. But I am not sure if "GNU Library General Public License, version
2.0" can be considered compatible. I am in no way familiar with the western
legal system, so this is only my personal opinion.
The GNU.org webset lists "GNU Library General Public License, version 2.0" as
an old version of "GNU Lesser General Public License":
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/old-licenses.html
Does that mean the FSF thinks "GNU Library General Public License, version
2.0" is equal to "GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.0"? Will this
hold in a court?
What's your opinion?
Thanks in advance.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Re: [bug#43975] [PATCH 1/1] gnu: Add ccal. |
|
Date: |
Sun, 18 Oct 2020 23:51:53 +0200 |
Peng Mei Yu <pengmeiyu@riseup.net> writes:
> * gnu/packages/calendar.scm (ccal): New variable.
Applied with minor tweaks to the description (@command markup), and
with a comment regarding the licenses. Thank you!
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---