[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Removing "or later" from Xen license, Was: [PATCH v2 3/3] add SPDX to arch/arm/*.c



Hi all,

I changed the subject to reflect the discussion and moved George to
"to:" to get his attention.

Also, if we are going to make any chances as described below, I think
they should be a separate series from the SPDX series.


On Tue, 23 Aug 2022, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > I am putting some thoughts below (they can be split in a separate thread
> > > if you prefer).
> > > 
> > > This is not the first time this topic is brought up and probably not the
> > > last as long as we have file using GPLv2+.
> > > 
> > > IIRC from past discussion there are two broads concern with GPLv2+:
> > >   - We are leaving the choice of which license applies to the person
> > > copying the code. So if a new version is released that is less favorable
> > > to the initial contributor, then we have no leverage.
> > >   - Some companies are rather cautious to contribute code that my be
> > > licensed under GPLv3 (would be allowed with GPLv2+).
> > > 
> > > The later is particularly a problem because not many people realize that a
> > > fair part of Xen on Arm is GPLv2+. I never really understood why we chose
> > > that (this was before my time) but this got spread as the existing
> > > copyright was added to a new file. Admittely, the contributor should be
> > > more cautious. But I would not say this is trivial to spot the difference.
> > > 
> > > I would like to consider to re-license all the GPLv2+ files to GPLv2.
> > > AFAIU, this would mean we would need to ask the permission for every
> > > comapany that contributed to the file. Do you know if this was done before
> > > in Xen Project?
> > 
> > If I am understanding right, GPLv2+ means that someone could relicense the
> > files to GPLv3 if he wants which is more restrictive.
> > Why do you want to move those back to GPLv2 ?
> The main difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 is the patent section. This has
> caused some concerns in the past when a stakeholder want to contribute to Xen
> Project.
>
> While looking through at previous discussion, I found the original discussion
> [1] which contains a lot more details.


I agree with Julien. Also, I don't think that having GPLv2-or-later on a
few source files is of benefit to anyone (if Xen was GPLv2-or-later as a
whole it would be a different discussion).

Moving from GPLv2-or-later to GPLv2-only is not a relicense. The "or
later" statement is not part of the license itself. It would be limiting
the choice of license to a subset of what is currently allowed: i.e.
from [GPLv2,GPLv3] to [GPLv2]. I don't think we need approval from the
original authors from that.

The original authors already stated: "my code can be either under GPLv2
or GPLv3". Now we are only offering it under GPLv2. Users can still get
the older version from a past Xen release under GPLv3 if they want to.

So I think we can drop "or later" any time as long as the maintainers
agree.

George, do you agree with the above?



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.