License change "LGPL 3" to "LGPL 2.1 or later"

I agree under the same condition than Siegfried.
I'm not a lawyer and not experienced enough with this kind of licensing stuff, so all I can do is trust you to make the best decision.

Sorry for blocking this for such a long time, but I'm almost not following mailinglists, they are so web0.1 ;)

Back to this, I thought I'd make sense to analyze what this means before we do any decision. Please correct me if there's anything I got wrong!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CURRENT SITUATION (LGPLv3+)

What can we do?
 - We can copy code from files licensed under the LGPLv3+ or the LGPLv2.1+ (note the "or later" on both of them).

What can other do?
 - They can copy code from Zeitgeist into files licensed under the GPLv3, GPLv3+, LGPLv3 or LGPLv3+. If they are using LGPLv2+, they can update to LGPLv3+ without needing the consent of all developers (as they have already given consent if it's "or later").
 - They can use Zeitgeist, over D-Bus or using the Python module, no matter what license their software has (even proprietary).

What advantages does it have?
 - It has protection against DRM, ie. "tivoization" (good for the users).
 - It has protection against patents.
 - It has been updated to be more international, but GPLv2 has already won court cases, so this may not be that important.
 - Maybe more stuff, I don't really know (but personally I trust the FSF's criteria defending version 3 over the 2).

SITUATION WITH LGPLv2.1+

What can we do?
 - Copy code from LGPLv3+ and LGPLv2.1+.

What can others do?
 - They can copy code from Zeitgeist into files licensed under the GPLv2, GPLv2+, LGPLv2.1, LGPLv2.1+ GPLv3, GPLv3+, LGPLv3, LGPLv3+.
 - They can use Zeitgeist, over D-Bus or using the Python module, no matter what license their software has (even proprietary).

SUMMARIZING, THE CHANGES:

What can we do?
 - The same as before, we gain nothing changing the license.

What can others do?
 - They gain the possibility to copy code from Zeitgeist into files licensed under the GPLv2, the GPLv2+, the LGPLv2.1 or the LGPLv2.1+.

Additionally, our users lose protection against DRM and also the patents chunk.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looking at this, I don't think we should switch, as by the switch we and our users are loosing the advantages GPLv3 gives, only to allow other people to copy code into {,L}GPLv2{,+} code. Myself, I'm writing the code for Zeitgeist, if others want to copy it they should respect my license and upgrade (also getting the advantages of version 3) if they really want (or, if they are interested in a chunk only I touched they may poke me and bribe me to give them that part under GPL2 because of a very good reason).

OK I am waiting for Markus's reply.
Here is how i see it. More People use our code the more consultancy we can
provide even for proprietary. But I also agree on people respecting our work
:)

Code wise from stuff that is being used actively its only.

1. Seif
2. Natan
3. Siegfried
4. Mikkel
5. Markus
----------------------------
6. Alex (the focus stuff although not applied yet, so not sure if it counts)
7. KaKaRoTo (he send some fixes for LRU)

Cheers
Seif

2010/1/7 Siegfried Gevatter <email address hidden>

> Back to this, I thought I'd make sense to analyze what this means before
> we do any decision. Please correct me if there's anything I got wrong!
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> CURRENT SITUATION (LGPLv3+)
>
> What can we do?
> - We can copy code from files licensed under the LGPLv3+ or the LGPLv2.1+
> (note the "or later" on both of them).
>
> What can other do?
> - They can copy code from Zeitgeist into files licensed under the GPLv3,
> GPLv3+, LGPLv3 or LGPLv3+. If they are using LGPLv2+, they can update to
> LGPLv3+ without needing the consent of all developers (as they have already
> given consent if it's "or later").
> - They can use Zeitgeist, over D-Bus or using the Python module, no matter
> what license their software has (even proprietary).
>
> What advantages does it have?
> - It has protection against DRM, ie. "tivoization" (good for the users).
> - It has protection against patents.
> - It has been updated to be more international, but GPLv2 has already won
> court cases, so this may not be that important.
> - Maybe more stuff, I don't really know (but personally I trust the FSF's
> criteria defending version 3 over the 2).
>
> SITUATION WITH LGPLv2.1+
>
> What can we do?
> - Copy code from LGPLv3+ and LGPLv2.1+.
>
> What can others do?
> - They can copy code from Zeitgeist into files licensed under the GPLv2,
> GPLv2+, LGPLv2.1, LGPLv2.1+ GPLv3, GPLv3+, LGPLv3, LGPLv3+.
> - They can use Zeitgeist, over D-Bus or using the Python module, no matter
> what license their software has (even proprietary).
>
> SUMMARIZING, THE CHANGES:
>
> What can we do?
> - The same as before, we gain nothing changing the license.
>
> What can others do?
> - They gain the possibility to copy code from Zeitgeist into files
> licensed under the GPLv2, the GPLv2+, the LGPLv2.1 or the LGPLv2.1+.
>
> Additionally, our users lose protection against DRM and also the patents
> chunk.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Looking at this, I don't think we should switch, as by the switch we and
> our users are loosing the advantages GPLv3 gives, only to allow other
> people to copy code into {,L}GPLv2{,+} code. Myself, I'm writing the
> code for Zeitgeist, if others want to copy it they should respect my
> license and upgrade (also getting the advantages of version 3) if they
> really want (or, if they are interested in a chunk only I touched they
> may poke me and bribe me to give them that part under GPL2 because of a
> very good reason).
>
> --
> License change "LGP...

We have a slight issue with _zeitgeist/loggers/iso_strptime.py
----------------------------
File _zeitgeist/loggers/iso_strptime.py is part of wadllib, which is
copyright © 2009 by Canonical Ltd. It is released under the following
license:

 wadllib is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under
the
 terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free
 Software Foundation, version 3 of the License.

 wadllib is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY
 WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS
 FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU Lesser General Public License for
more
 details.
----------------------------
Does this somehow stand in our way. AFAIK it does -.-
Cheers
Seif

2009/12/23 Markus Korn <email address hidden>

> I agree under the same condition than Siegfried.
> I'm not a lawyer and not experienced enough with this kind of licensing
> stuff, so all I can do is trust you to make the best decision.
>
> Sorry for blocking this for such a long time, but I'm almost not
> following mailinglists, they are so web0.1 ;)
>
> --
> License change "LGPL 3" to "LGPL 2.1 or later"
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/499788
> You received this bug notification because you are a member of Zeitgeist
> Developers, which is the registrant for Zeitgeist Framework.
>
> Status in Zeitgeist Framework: New
>
> Bug description:
> There's a push to change the license of the codebase from "LGPL 3" to "LGPL
> 2.1 or later".
>
> As it stands we have full consent from Seif Lotfy and Mikkel Kamstrup.
> Siegfried Gevatter has made a conditional +1:
>
> "If _everyone_ else wants to switch from "LGPL3 or later" to "LGPL 2.1or
> later", I'm fine with it."
>
> Of the core contributors Markus Korn has not answered yet.
>
> If Markus agrees the next logical step is to create a list of other
> contributors we have that should be heard.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~zeitgeist
> Post to : <email address hidden>
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~zeitgeist
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>

2010/1/7 Seif Lotfy <email address hidden>:
> We have a slight issue with _zeitgeist/loggers/iso_strptime.py
> [...]
>  Software Foundation, version 3 of the License.

Yes, this is effectively making Zeitgeist LGPL3 (not even LGPLv3+). If
we switched to "LGPL2+", as long as we have this file it would still
be, effectively, "LGPL3".

--
Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT)
Free Software Developer 363DEAE3

2010/1/7 Seif Lotfy <email address hidden>:
> Here is how i see it. More People use our code the more consultancy we can
> provide even for proprietary.

Yes, but I think you are mixing up "linking" and "copying".

Proprietary applications *can* use Zeitgeist (be it over D-Bus, the
Python module or whatever). What they cannot do is take source code
from Zeitgeist and copy it into their project unless it's
{L,}GPLv3{,+} (eg. they cannot take Zeitgeist and make a proprietary
version out of it, or take our algorithms -once we have something...
*sigh*- and modify them to work in their proprietary application).

If we switch to LGPLv2.1+ nothing of the above changes, the only
difference is that they can copy stuff into {L,}GPLv2{,+} applications
too.

--
Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT)
Free Software Developer 363DEAE3

No one is getting hurt with 3
I change my vote
lets stay with 3

2010/1/7 Siegfried Gevatter <email address hidden>

> 2010/1/7 Seif Lotfy <email address hidden>:
> > Here is how i see it. More People use our code the more consultancy we
> can
> > provide even for proprietary.
>
> Yes, but I think you are mixing up "linking" and "copying".
>
> Proprietary applications *can* use Zeitgeist (be it over D-Bus, the
> Python module or whatever). What they cannot do is take source code
> from Zeitgeist and copy it into their project unless it's
> {L,}GPLv3{,+} (eg. they cannot take Zeitgeist and make a proprietary
> version out of it, or take our algorithms -once we have something...
> *sigh*- and modify them to work in their proprietary application).
>
> If we switch to LGPLv2.1+ nothing of the above changes, the only
> difference is that they can copy stuff into {L,}GPLv2{,+} applications
> too.
>
> --
> Siegfried-Angel Gevatter Pujals (RainCT)
> Free Software Developer 363DEAE3
>
> --
> License change "LGPL 3" to "LGPL 2.1 or later"
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/499788
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to The
> Zeitgeist Project.
>
> Status in Zeitgeist Framework: New
>
> Bug description:
> There's a push to change the license of the codebase from "LGPL 3" to "LGPL
> 2.1 or later".
>
> As it stands we have full consent from Seif Lotfy and Mikkel Kamstrup.
> Siegfried Gevatter has made a conditional +1:
>
> "If _everyone_ else wants to switch from "LGPL3 or later" to "LGPL 2.1or
> later", I'm fine with it."
>
> Of the core contributors Markus Korn has not answered yet.
>
> If Markus agrees the next logical step is to create a list of other
> contributors we have that should be heard.
>
>
>
>

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Siegfried Gevatter <email address hidden> wrote:
> Back to this, I thought I'd make sense to analyze what this means before
> we do any decision. Please correct me if there's anything I got wrong!
>

Thanks Siegfried for this detailed explanation,
for me it is obvious that we don't get anything be changing out license to v2.1+
so let's sty with what we have now, that's lees work to do, which is
always a good thing.

Booojaaa! - Markus

Ok - I duly accept that I have been over ruled :-) Marking bug as won't fix.