search

oz123 / awesome-c

A curated list of awesome C frameworks, libraries, resources and other shiny things. Inspired by all the other awesome-... projects out there.
Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International
9.16k stars 808 forks source link

`GPL-version-only` vs `GPL-version-or-later`? #265

Closed ghost closed 1 year ago

ghost commented 1 year ago

How do I know when it's GPL-version-only or GPL-version-or-later? To me, the license text seems to be the same (disclaimer: I'm neither a lawyer nor an English speaker, so I can't know for sure if I missed something).

For example, how could you know the distcc project is GPL-2.0-or-later and not GPL-2.0-only? The license doesn't say anything about that. On the project description, Github only says it's licensed under GPL-2.0 license.

Update: The file you normally mistake for the license of the project is indeed only a copy of the GPL. This is the reason why it's the same regardless of whether the project is GPL-version-only or GPL-version-or-later. It's up to each project to decide whether they are GPL-version-only or GPL-version-or-later. They usually put the license into source code but it's not always the case.

cjwagenius commented 1 year ago

The README does.

ghost commented 1 year ago

The README does.

The only thing this file tells you is:

distcc is distributed under the GNU General Public Licence v2.

You still don't know if it's GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later.

ghost commented 1 year ago

At least for distcc, you have to go down to the source code level. Each source file will have the license in it. This tells very clearly that it's GPL-2.0-or-later. I don't know if it's true for other project, though.

Update: Well, it's untrue for this project: https://github.com/nbulischeck/list.h, as there is no license in the source file. How could you know that it's GPL-3.0-only?

ghost commented 1 year ago

@oz123

cjwagenius commented 1 year ago

28 juni 2023 11:12 av @.***:

The >> README https://github.com/distcc/distcc/blob/master/README>> does.

The only thing this file tells you is:

distcc is distributed under the GNU General Public Licence v2.

You still don't know if it's > GPL-2.0-only> or > GPL-2.0-or-later> .

— Reply to this email directly, > view it on GitHub https://github.com/oz123/awesome-c/issues/265#issuecomment-1611052826> , or > unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAXZTHAOVQQO4XLTVVJVP53XNPYRBANCNFSM6AAAAAASDPJJJU> . You are receiving this because you commented.> Message ID: > <oz123/awesome-c/issues/265/1611052826> @> github> .> com>

If you need distcc and really have to be specific, ask them.

/cjw

ghost commented 1 year ago

If you need distcc and really have to be specific, ask them. /cjw

distcc is only mentioned as an example.

cjwagenius commented 1 year ago

28 juni 2023 15:54 av @.***:

If you need distcc and really have to be specific, ask them. /cjw

distcc is only mentioned as an example.

— Reply to this email directly, > view it on GitHub https://github.com/oz123/awesome-c/issues/265#issuecomment-1611459099> , or > unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAXZTHDYIR23T2U7RLIBTGDXNQZR3ANCNFSM6AAAAAASDPJJJU> . You are receiving this because you commented.> Message ID: > <oz123/awesome-c/issues/265/> @.***> >

Yes. It goes for any software project, really.

/cjw

ghost commented 1 year ago

Yes. It goes for any software project, really. /cjw

This is the reason why I only submit issues, not PR. I don't have time to ping each project to ask them if they are GPL-version-only or GPL-version-or-later. It's worse, as there are AGPL and LGPL as well, and they also have version-only or version-or-later.

@oz123 has not yet stepped in and told me how he could know some projects are GPL-version-only or GPL-version-or-later, given there is no information presented by said projects as they only said they are licensed under the GPL. Did he really ping each project to ask them? The contributors of this project really ping these projects to ask them?

cjwagenius commented 1 year ago

29 juni 2023 05:47 av @.***:

Yes. It goes for any software project, really. /cjw

This is the reason why I only submit issues, not PR. I don't have time to ping each project to ask them if they are > GPL-version-only> or > GPL-version-or-later> . It's worse, as there are AGPL and LGPL as well, and they also have > version-only> or > version-or-later> variants. > @oz123 https://github.com/oz123> has not yet stepped in and told me how he could know some projects are > GPL-version-only> or > GPL-version-or-later> , given there is no information presented by said projects as they only said they are licensed under the GPL. Did he really ping each project to ask them? The contributors of this project really ping these projects to ask them?

— Reply to this email directly, > view it on GitHub https://github.com/oz123/awesome-c/issues/265#issuecomment-1612391315> , or > unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAXZTHCBXLYDV5OXASY2FDTXNT3ETANCNFSM6AAAAAASDPJJJU> . You are receiving this because you commented.> Message ID: > <oz123/awesome-c/issues/265/> @.***> >

Look. You're getting too anal about it. This is a list where people submit projects that can be used by other C programmers. It's not a license encyclopedia. The license information for any project in this list may be a best guess by the person that submitted it. It may also be wrong, since licensing may change over time. If you find something wrong in the information here, please feel free to correct it. If you can't tell whether it's wrong or not, don't bother.

ghost commented 1 year ago

If you aren't sure if your information is accurate, why do you require the license of each project to be added as part of the contribution guidelines in the first place? Is it only to complicate things more? Do you ever read this project's contributing guidelines? The license for each project is not something optional.

The list owner definitely wanted to make it as accurate as possible by forcing contributors to use SPDX license labels. Please have a look at the awesome-cpp list: https://github.com/fffaraz/awesome-cpp. There is no distinction between GPL-version-only and GPL-version-or-later in this list. They also don't force the use of SPDX license labels.

So far, the list owner has not yet stepped forward to clarify anything.

cjwagenius commented 1 year ago

29 juni 2023 15:55 av @.***:

If you aren't sure if your information is accurate, why do you require the license of each project to be added as part of the contribution guidelines in the first place? Is it only to complicate things more? Do you ever read this project's contributing guidelines? The license for each project is not something optional. The list owner definitely wanted to make it as accurate as possible. Please have a look at the awesome-cpp list: > https://github.com/fffaraz/awesome-cpp> . There is no distinction between > GPL-version-only> and > GPL-version-or-later> like in this list. They also don't force the use of SPDX license labels.

So far, the list owner has not yet stepped forward to clarify anything.

— Reply to this email directly, > view it on GitHub https://github.com/oz123/awesome-c/issues/265#issuecomment-1613227469> , or > unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAXZTHHG4ZDV7MDMQRGPJVLXNWCNBANCNFSM6AAAAAASDPJJJU> . You are receiving this because you commented. Message ID: > <oz123/awesome-c/issues/265/1613227469@

If you find something wrong in this list, and want to provide the correct information, please make a PR.

/cjw

ghost commented 1 year ago

It seems you still do not understand my points. Let me sum it up for you. This project forced contributors to use SPDX license labels. You are causing for yourself and the people who wanted to contribute to your list more problems than they are worth by using SPDX license labels. Yes, it's right to distinguish between GPL-version-only and GPL-version-or-later because they are two incompatible licenses. But most of the developers don't know about this or simply don't care. They only know that their code is licensed under the GPL. You will have to ask them to clarify whether their project is GPL-version-only or GPL-version-or-later.

What I want is that you don't force me to use the SPDX license labels GPL-version-only or GPL-version-or-later. Just let me simply write GPL-version. Same for LGPL and AGPL. You can't know for sure if it's GPL-version-only or GPL-version-or-later without asking them anyway. You told me to just guess, and people would correct it later if needed. I think it's better to just write GPL-version. I can't make it any clearer.

cjwagenius commented 1 year ago

29 juni 2023 18:21 av @.***:

Please don't force me to use the SPDX license labels > GPL-version-only> or > GPL-version-or-later> . Just let me simply write > GPL-version> . Same for LGPL and AGPL. You can't know for sure if the project is > GPL-version-only> or > GPL-version-or-later> without asking them anyway. You told me to just guess, and people would correct it later. I think it's better to just write > GPL-version> .

— Reply to this email directly, > view it on GitHub https://github.com/oz123/awesome-c/issues/265#issuecomment-1613486753> , or > unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAXZTHAGZ2DA3K5TZU6GUILXNWTO7ANCNFSM6AAAAAASDPJJJU> . You are receiving this because you commented.> Message ID: > <oz123/awesome-c/issues/265/> @.***> >

 I didn't tell you to guess. If you want to add a new project to this list, find out which license it's under before you add it. If you find a project in this list that is labeled under the wrong license, please make a PR with the correct one.  If you choose to use any project, or a part of a project, in this list in your own projects, make sure to double check its license agreement what you're allowed to do.

 I don't think anyone can make it clearer. If the list doesn't live up to your expectations, use another.

Thank you & good bye.

/cjw