Possible relicensing of digest from GPL-2 to GPL (>= 2) #36

Closed
eddelbuettel opened this Issue Apr 28, 2016 · 17 comments

Projects

None yet
@eddelbuettel
Owner
eddelbuettel commented Apr 28, 2016 edited

digest was started 13 years ago in 2003. At the time GPL-2 was the only game in town; the GPL-3 did AFAIK not arrive until 2007.

It has been pointed out to me that in order to use digest along with software licensed only under the GPL-3, it would be preferable to use either "GPL (>= 2)" or "GPL-2 | GPL-3" (which is what CRAN currently expands the former to).

I am ok with the idea of relicensing from "GPL-2" to "GPL (>= 2)" [1] but I am under the understanding that every copyright holder needs to agree. So based on the DESCRIPTION file, this means we need to hear from everybody below (in chronological order of contributions to digest):

I marked myself as being fine with the proposed change, and I plan to accordingly mark everybody who reports back (preferably below with a simple "I am ok with the license change to GPL (>=2)".

But it is my understanding that we need everybody to report back in order to be operational. So thanks in advance for giving this some thought, and following-up below.
Thanks to everybody for all the support over these thirteen years -- with all your help digest went much further than I ever imagined. Let's see if we can pull this one off too, so help in locating everybody listed above (and of course anybody I may have forgotten) is welcome!

[1] Also please forgive me for very plainly stating that I have zero interest in a license comparison discussion. The digest package has always been under copyleft licensing, and will remain copyleft. This is not the place or time to discuss MIT vs Apache vs BSD vs ...

@HenrikBengtsson
Contributor

I am ok with the license change to GPL (>=2) /Henrik

@s-u
s-u commented Apr 28, 2016

I am ok with the license change to GPL (>=2) /Simon

@thirdwing
Contributor

I am ok with the license change to GPL (>=2) /Qiang Kou

@murraystokely

I am ok with the license change to gpl (>=2)

Murray

On Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Qiang Kou (KK) notifications@github.com
wrote:

I am ok with the license change to GPL (>=2) /Qiang Kou

โ€”
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#36 (comment)

@hannesmuehleisen
Contributor

I am ok with the license change to gpl (>=2)

Hannes

@bwlewis
Contributor
bwlewis commented Apr 28, 2016

I am ok with the license change to gpl (>=2)

Best,

Bryan
On Apr 27, 2016 6:20 PM, "Dirk Eddelbuettel" notifications@github.com
wrote:

digest was started 13 years ago in 2003. At the time GPL-2 was the only
game in town; the GPL-3 did AFAIK not arrive until 2007.

It has been pointed to me out that in order to use digest along with
software licensed only under the GPL-3, it would be preferable to use
either "GPL (>= 2)" or "GPL-2 | GPL-3" (which is what CRAN currently
expands the former to).

I am ok with the idea of relicensing from "GPL-2" to "GPL (>= 2)" [1] but
I am under the understanding that every copyright holder needs to
agree. So based on the DESCRIPTION file, this means we need to hear from
everybody below (in chronological order of contributions to digest):

I marked myself as being fine with the proposed change, and I plan to
accordingly mark everybody who reports back (preferably below with a simple "I
am ok with the license change to GPL (>=2)"
.

But it is my understanding that we need everybody to report back in
order to be operational. So thanks in advance for giving this some thought,
and following-up below.
Thanks to everybody for all the support over these thirteen years -- with
all your help digest went much further than I ever imagined. Let's see
if we can pull this one off too, so help in locating everybody listed above
(and of course anybody I may have forgotten) is welcome!

[1] Also please forgive me for very plainly stating that I have zero
interest in a license comparison discussion. The digest package has always
been under copyleft licensing, and will remain copyleft. This is not the
place or time to discuss MIT vs Apache vs BSD vs ...

โ€”
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#36

@mllg
Contributor
mllg commented Apr 28, 2016

I am ok with the license change to GPL (>=2).

Michel

@ThierryO
Contributor

I am ok with the license change to GPL (>=2)

Thierry

@jimhester
Contributor

I am ok with the license change to GPL (>=2)

Jim
On Apr 27, 2016 9:20 PM, "Dirk Eddelbuettel" notifications@github.com
wrote:

digest was started 13 years ago in 2003. At the time GPL-2 was the only
game in town; the GPL-3 did AFAIK not arrive until 2007.

It has been pointed to me out that in order to use digest along with
software licensed only under the GPL-3, it would be preferable to use
either "GPL (>= 2)" or "GPL-2 | GPL-3" (which is what CRAN currently
expands the former to).

I am ok with the idea of relicensing from "GPL-2" to "GPL (>= 2)" [1] but
I am under the understanding that every copyright holder needs to
agree. So based on the DESCRIPTION file, this means we need to hear from
everybody below (in chronological order of contributions to digest):

I marked myself as being fine with the proposed change, and I plan to
accordingly mark everybody who reports back (preferably below with a simple "I
am ok with the license change to GPL (>=2)"
.

But it is my understanding that we need everybody to report back in
order to be operational. So thanks in advance for giving this some thought,
and following-up below.
Thanks to everybody for all the support over these thirteen years -- with
all your help digest went much further than I ever imagined. Let's see
if we can pull this one off too, so help in locating everybody listed above
(and of course anybody I may have forgotten) is welcome!

[1] Also please forgive me for very plainly stating that I have zero
interest in a license comparison discussion. The digest package has always
been under copyleft licensing, and will remain copyleft. This is not the
place or time to discuss MIT vs Apache vs BSD vs ...

โ€”
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#36

@wush978
Contributor
wush978 commented Apr 28, 2016

I am ok with the license change to GPL (>=2)

Wush

@eddelbuettel
Owner
eddelbuettel commented Apr 29, 2016 edited

I heard from Antoine Lucas he said in private mail he in ok with the change / indifferent to it:

Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 15:58:24 +0200                                                                                                                                                                               
From: Antoine Lucas <....>                                                                                                                                                                        
To: Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@debian.org>                                                                                                                                                                              
Subject: Re: Proposed license change of digest from 'GPL-2' to 'GPL (>= 2)'                                                                                                                                         

Hello.

I am on holiday. I have no objection to a change on GPL version.

Do as you prefer.

Bests

Antoine Lucas
@vsimko
Contributor
vsimko commented May 1, 2016

I am ok with the license change to GPL (>=2) /Viliam

@mfrasca
mfrasca commented May 2, 2016

I am ok with the license change to GPL (>=2) ๐Ÿ˜„

@dmurdoch
Contributor
dmurdoch commented May 3, 2016

I'm also okay with it.

@eddelbuettel eddelbuettel referenced this issue in RcppCore/Rcpp Jul 17, 2016
Open

Documentation Update / Issue Tracker Cleaning #506

33 of 43 tasks complete
@eddelbuettel
Owner

The entity making the request for the relicensing found a workaround, so this is now less urgent.

I will leave it open; if someone ever finds Jarek Tuszynski on-line or in real-life please direct him here. It would be nice to bring it to closure, whether it is somewhat urgent (as it once was) or not (now).

@JarektCommons
JarektCommons commented Aug 2, 2016 edited

This is Jarek Tuszynski. I am also find with the relicense

@eddelbuettel
Owner

Hey -- so good to hear from you! We are now (tada) in complete agreement so the next upload will be GPL (>= 2). It just so happens ... that I made one to CRAN today which just arrived as 0.6.10. But there is no (longer any) hurry.

@eddelbuettel eddelbuettel added a commit that closed this issue Aug 2, 2016
@eddelbuettel license goes from GPL-2 to GPL (>=2) (closes #36)
see extensive discussion at #36
with formal buy-in of every copyright holder
22f765c
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment