Re: [GRASS-user] GNU GPL version 3 and Grass code

[Markus Neteler-3]

(cc grass-psc)

On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 09:54:00AM +1000, [hidden email] wrote:

> Patton, Eric wrote:
> > Patton, Eric wrote:
> > > With the GNU GPL version 3 scheduled to be released tomorrow, are there
> > > are plans on adopting this license for Grass?
> > >
> > > Frank Warmderdam wrote:
> > > > Eric,
> > > > Has it been approved by OSI yet?  OSGeo has taken the position that project
> > > > code will only be released under OSI approved licenses, and so I think
> > > > project adoption of GPL3 should wait for that process to be completed
> > > > by OSI.
> > > >
> > > > I asked OSI (via one director) about it a few months ago and they hadn't
> > > > started any serious review at that time.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
>
> > From what I can see on the OSI site, they haven't approved GPL3
> > yet, but that's not surprising given it hasn't been officially
> > released yet. It might be something worth keeping on eye on if it's
> > the intention of the developers to adopt GPL3 at some point.
> >
> > ~ Eric.
>
> Is copyright on GRASS code held by individual authors?

In general yes.

> Or is the copyright transferred to the GRASS project itself
> when code is submitted?

No. We don't have copyright transfer. This was discussed a lot
last year in terms of an OSGeo contribution agreement.

> Or, to put it another way, does adopting a different liscence
> require the concent of every single contributor, or merely
> a decision by the project steering committee?

As far as I understand it, it requires the concent of every
single contributor *if* the new license is not compliant
with GPL. Note that most (all?) code contains GPL >= V2.
But GRASS-PSC is certainly involved in the decision.

> nick
>
[ too long privacy statemente removed ]

Markus

[HamishB]

> Eric Patton wrote:
> With the GNU GPL version 3 scheduled to be released tomorrow,
> are there are plans on adopting this license for Grass?

my 2c:
Sit on it for 6 months - a year (or two!) after release and see how the
dust settles before seriously raising the issue. Do not accept GPL2-
incompatible code until such time as that decision is made.
(aka don't be the guinea pig; keep the licensing terms clear & crisp)


Eric:
> > Is copyright on GRASS code held by individual authors?

Markus:
> In general yes.
>
> > Or is the copyright transferred to the GRASS project itself
> > when code is submitted?
>
> No. We don't have copyright transfer. This was discussed a lot
> last year in terms of an OSGeo contribution agreement.

It is suggested that co-copyright be granted to "The GRASS Development
Team", but as Frank pointed out that only exists as a moral entity, not
a legal one, so the issue is still open. Joining OSGeo means that
forming a legal non-profit GRASS Foundation (or OGCv2) for that is
mostly a redundant exercise, but there are reservations with handing GDT
copyright over to OSGeo wholesale (ie in the hands of folks who are
outside of the grass community [if only slightly]).

 
> > Or, to put it another way, does adopting a different liscence
> > require the concent of every single contributor, or merely
> > a decision by the project steering committee?
>
> As far as I understand it, it requires the concent of every
> single contributor *if* the new license is not compliant
> with GPL. Note that most (all?) code contains GPL >= V2.

And that GPL3 is not retroactive to already released versions.


Hamish

[Michael Barton]

This sounds eminently reasonable--especially given all the flap over GPL3.
Maybe it will all be a non-issue, but we don't have to be the ones to test
this.

Michael


On 7/2/07 10:50 PM, "Hamish" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Eric Patton wrote:
>> With the GNU GPL version 3 scheduled to be released tomorrow,
>> are there are plans on adopting this license for Grass?
>
> my 2c:
> Sit on it for 6 months - a year (or two!) after release and see how the
> dust settles before seriously raising the issue. Do not accept GPL2-
> incompatible code until such time as that decision is made.
> (aka don't be the guinea pig; keep the licensing terms clear & crisp)
>
>
> Eric:
>>> Is copyright on GRASS code held by individual authors?
>
> Markus:
>> In general yes.
>>
>>> Or is the copyright transferred to the GRASS project itself
>>> when code is submitted?
>>
>> No. We don't have copyright transfer. This was discussed a lot
>> last year in terms of an OSGeo contribution agreement.
>
> It is suggested that co-copyright be granted to "The GRASS Development
> Team", but as Frank pointed out that only exists as a moral entity, not
> a legal one, so the issue is still open. Joining OSGeo means that
> forming a legal non-profit GRASS Foundation (or OGCv2) for that is
> mostly a redundant exercise, but there are reservations with handing GDT
> copyright over to OSGeo wholesale (ie in the hands of folks who are
> outside of the grass community [if only slightly]).
>
>  
>>> Or, to put it another way, does adopting a different liscence
>>> require the concent of every single contributor, or merely
>>> a decision by the project steering committee?
>>
>> As far as I understand it, it requires the concent of every
>> single contributor *if* the new license is not compliant
>> with GPL. Note that most (all?) code contains GPL >= V2.
>
> And that GPL3 is not retroactive to already released versions.
>
>
> Hamish
>
> _______________________________________________
> grass-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://grass.itc.it/mailman/listinfo/grass-psc

__________________________________________
Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
Director of Graduate Studies
School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Center for Social Dynamics & Complexity
Arizona State University

phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
www: http://www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton