[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Relicensing another author's work
From:       "David C. Rankin" <drankinatty () suddenlinkmail ! com>
Date:       2009-06-12 6:32:46
Message-ID: 4A31F68E.4040105 () suddenlinkmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Raphael Kubo da Costa wrote:
> 2009/5/23 Raphael Kubo da Costa <kubito@gmail.com>:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> There's some code that was imported into Ark a few years ago
>> (plugins/bk) that is licensed as GPLv2-only. We need the author to
>> relicense it to comply to KDE's licensing policy, but he doesn't have
>> SVN access. Is it enough to just ask him and say he OK'd it in the
>> commit message? Do we need to do anything else so that the process
>> looks as transparent as possible?
> 
> I've been in contact with the author and after some exchanged e-mails
> he said "I have heard from a KDE guy that there are plenty of
> contributors to KDE who will not relicence their software GPL3 and
> that's perfectly fine, it's only required for a very few projects. So
> I won't do it either".
> 
> After reading the licensing policy article in Techbase I felt
> GPLv2-only code wasn't allowed. Is it perfectly fine or not? Does this
> code need to be removed from the tree?
>  
>>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
> 

There should be no need for the relicensing -- period. gpl-v2 code is gpl code
just as gpl-v3 code is gpl code. If code licensed under the original gpl is
included in a gpl-v2 project, then there isn't any prohibition against
licensing the entire new project under gpl-v2. Same with gpl-v2 code used in a
gpl-v3 project licensed ultimately under a gpl-v3 license. It's a giant "who cares"

In any of the above examples, the codebase remains public, the license (which
ever one you choose) gets included in the final release, and the source code is
either provided or is made available.

If you wanted to cover all your bases, you could simply provide a Contributors
"Reference" in the Readme file that simply says:

widget X contributed by Person's Name originally licensed under gpl-v2
Widget Y contributed ........

Overkill really, but it does capture a way to trace where and under what
license the code came into the project.

This shouldn't be an issue bothering open source projects. These issues are
issues that get sticky when a closed-source company incorporates open-source
code in a couple of aspects of its commercial offering. Then it is only an
issue to insure the disclosure requirements for any modification of the gpl
code and that the modified source is available. (Like the Linksys Routers)

For kde4 the issue may be fun to debate, but in the end all of the gpl2 code
incorporated into the project will be released under whatever gplXX the kde
team/board decides but from a copyright or contributor standpoint, I don't
think they would have standing to complain about whatever XX ends up being.

Say...KDE is preparing to become a closed-source proprietary shop are they ;-)

-- 
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Rankin Law Firm, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
Telephone: (936) 715-9333
Facsimile: (936) 715-9339
www.rankinlawfirm.com
 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]