[OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION] GPL version for code in documentation (was: Please Vote on Evergreen Documentation Licensing)

[Karen Collier]

I think the intent of using the GPL, at least in my eyes, was to keep the Evergreen code base and any code in the documentation in sync as far as licensing goes.  It was purely by accident that I linked to a specific version of the GPL, and that it turned out not to be the one the Evergreen code uses.  Oops!

Let's continue the vote with the understanding that we're referring to the same version of the GPL that the Evergreen code base uses.  For simplicity, let's have those who have already voted, speak up only if this clarification changes your vote.  Is this agreeable?

Thanks for pointing this out Dan.  I'll be sure to use your language when I put together official licensing statements.

Karen

----- "Dan Scott" <dan at coffeecode.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 11:06 -0500, Karen Collier wrote:
> > As discussed at the Documentation Interest Group Meeting on
> December, 9, 2009, I am calling for a vote on Documentation Licensing.
>  Members of the Documentation Interest Group and interested members of
> the Evergreen Community, please vote yes or no on the following
> proposals by Monday, January 4, 2009 by replying to this email on the
> Evergreen Documentation mailing list
> (open-ils-documentation at list.georgialibraries.org).
> > 
> > 1 - Official Evergreen Documentation produced by the Documentation
> Interest Group should be licensed under the Creative Commons
> Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 License
> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
> > 
> > 2 - Any code included in the official documentation produced by the
> Documentation Interest Group should also be made available under the
> GNU GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html).
> 
> I have to point out one small technicality; the version of the GNU
> GPL
> that is linked to is the GPL v3.0, whereas the OpenSRF and Evergreen
> code is GPL v2 or later (I _think_ we've applied the "or, at your
> option, any later version" redistribution clause consistently, when
> we
> have included the license header in source files).
> 
> Oddly enough, the GPL v2 and GPL v3.0 are incompatible according to
> the
> creators of those licenses; to use code licensed under "GPL v2 or
> later"
> with GPL v3.0 code, one must choose the "or later" option and
> relicense
> the code under the GPL v3.0.
> 
> I'm not opposed to the GPL v3.0 - among its benefits, it adds
> explicit
> patent grants where the GPL v2 only carries an implicit patent grant,
> and is written to comply with copyright laws worldwide instead of
> only
> American copyright law - but we might want to keep the same "GPL v2,
> or
> at your option, any later version" redistribution clause for the code
> in
> the documentation, simply to keep it in sync with the OpenSRF /
> Evergreen code base. Then, if at some point the project opts to move
> to
> the GPL v3, we can bring the documentation along too.
> 
> My apologies for not providing this clarification earlier. Can we
> consider the following a friendly amendment to the proposals?
> 
> Change:
> 
> 2 - Any code included in the official documentation produced by the
> Documentation Interest Group should also be made available under the
> GNU
> GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html).
> 
> To:
> 
> 2 - Any code included in the official documentation produced by the
> Documentation Interest Group should also be made available under the
> GNU
> GPL version 2
> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html),
> including the "or, at your option, any later version" redistribution
> clause.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION mailing list
> OPEN-ILS-DOCUMENTATION at list.georgialibraries.org
> http://list.georgialibraries.org/mailman/listinfo/open-ils-documentation

-- 
Karen Collier
Public Services Librarian
Kent County Public Library
408 High Street
Chestertown, MD 21620
410-778-3636