Keep "or-later" when relicensing #138
Conversation
Some licenses have different compatbilities for "only" vs "or-later", so we need to keep "or-later" and "only" when relicensing.
|
Example: So relicensing |
| "GPL-2.0-only", | ||
| "LGPL-2.1-only", | ||
| "LGPL-3.0-only" | ||
| "GPL-2.0-or-later", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That doesn't look right to me - lgpl can't turn into GPL (no matter what version)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.0.html
3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, instead of to this License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if you wish.) Do not make any other change in these notices.
Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for that copy, so the ordinary GNU General Public License applies to all subsequent copies and derivative works made from that copy.
This option is useful when you wish to copy part of the code of the Library into a program that is not a library.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not a lawyer, needless to say
|
But doesn't that revoke the L part in lgpl and therefore defeats the whole purpose? - I'd say yes a lgpl-2.1 can be turned into a GPL3 but not into a gpl2.0 as claimed here.I basically doubt that it is implicitly given to "downgrade" without the consent of all authors - in my understanding an upgrade is possible but not a downgrade, thus the "or-later" part ;)On 7 Nov 2021 12:18, Henrik Sandklef ***@***.***> wrote:
@hesa commented on this pull request.
In flict/var/relicense.json:
]
},
{
"spdx": "LGPL-2.1-or-later",
"later": [
- "GPL-2.0-only",
- "LGPL-2.1-only",
- "LGPL-3.0-only"
+ "GPL-2.0-or-later",
I am not a lawyer, needless to say
—You are receiving this because you commented.Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
|
|
For me, I've always thought "latest lgpl" -> "latest gpl", which explains why I want to downgrade ( Your reasoning sounds legit as well. @LeChasseur , do you have any insights in this? In short: LGPL states I can chose to take a LGPL (library) and make it GPL instead. Given a software licensed under "LGPLv2.1", can this be relicensed in to "GPLv2.0" and "GPLv3.0" or can it only be relicensed to "GPLv3.0" |
|
@silverhook your input is welcome :) |
|
@hesa , see my comment in the review (mouse slipped, did not want to start a review) |
|
@silverhook ... in the review? You know I am old and don't understand new and fancy stuff |
|
The same exists in LGPL-2.1, so I don’t see an issue here. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html
|
@silverhook flict relicenses (trying to) for you. I know this is a border case and perhaps only a theoretical exercise. Still, want to get it right. If flict identifies a license it checks if it can relicense. So all possible relicensing is important to get down "on paper" correctly.
Sorry for being pushy below: Possible interpretations:
|
|
Personally, I’d say it’s 1) OK. It even explicitly says “GPL version 2”. (Obviously you should talk to your lawyer, if you are in any doubts ;) ) |
|
@hesa what are we going to do about this here? |
Some licenses have different compatbilities for "only" vs "or-later",
so we need to keep "or-later" and "only" when relicensing.