Hi folks,
I've just noticed that most of flashrom is licensed under GPLv2 + any later version, while about a third of the code base is GPLv2 only. I wonder if that is intentional, or if any of the license headers was just copy pasted and spread too much?
Does somebody know any previous discussion on the topic?
Nico
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 18:51:46 +0100 Nico Huber nico.h@gmx.de wrote:
Hi folks,
I've just noticed that most of flashrom is licensed under GPLv2 + any later version, while about a third of the code base is GPLv2 only. I wonder if that is intentional, or if any of the license headers was just copy pasted and spread too much?
Hi,
using GPLv2 code in a GPLv2+ project is perfectly fine: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#compat-matrix-footnote-2 Not sure about the "spread factor" but there are certainly *some* parts that are GPLv2 so there is not much incentive to look further IMHO...
Hi Stefan,
On 26.01.2018 23:43, Stefan Tauner wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 18:51:46 +0100 Nico Huber nico.h@gmx.de wrote:
Hi folks,
I've just noticed that most of flashrom is licensed under GPLv2 + any later version, while about a third of the code base is GPLv2 only. I wonder if that is intentional, or if any of the license headers was just copy pasted and spread too much?
Hi,
using GPLv2 code in a GPLv2+ project is perfectly fine: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#compat-matrix-footnote-2
of course. But given that people ask from time to time about libflashrom GPLv2 might not be the only license involved.
Not sure about the "spread factor" but there are certainly *some* parts that are GPLv2 so there is not much incentive to look further IMHO...
Not to completely unify the licensing, no. But flashrom is rather flexible concerning what is build into the binary. So we could still strive to make it GPLv2+ in its core or something.
Also, I am wondering if I should encourage contributors that add new files to make it GPLv2+ or not.
Nico
Hi Nico,
On 27.01.2018 15:49, Nico Huber wrote:
Hi Stefan,
On 26.01.2018 23:43, Stefan Tauner wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 18:51:46 +0100 Nico Huber nico.h@gmx.de wrote:
Hi folks,
I've just noticed that most of flashrom is licensed under GPLv2 + any later version, while about a third of the code base is GPLv2 only. I wonder if that is intentional, or if any of the license headers was just copy pasted and spread too much?
Hi,
using GPLv2 code in a GPLv2+ project is perfectly fine: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#compat-matrix-footnote-2
of course. But given that people ask from time to time about libflashrom GPLv2 might not be the only license involved.
Not sure about the "spread factor" but there are certainly *some* parts that are GPLv2 so there is not much incentive to look further IMHO...
Not to completely unify the licensing, no. But flashrom is rather flexible concerning what is build into the binary. So we could still strive to make it GPLv2+ in its core or something.
Also, I am wondering if I should encourage contributors that add new files to make it GPLv2+ or not.
The decision to have parts of flashrom licensed unter GPLv2-only was a response to some external people wanting to add GPLv3+ code to the code base (or create a GPLv3/GPLv3+ fork for purely political reasons) many years ago. That would have made flashrom unusable for GPLv2-only projects, which would have been a bad thing for coreboot. Back then, I had asked RMS for advice on how to prevent a hostile GPLv3+ takeover of a GPLv2+ codebase, and he told me that this was impossible for GPLv2+ code. Due to that, we kept parts of flashrom licensed under GPLv2-only. Back then, there was no GPLv3+ licensed project which would have qualified as potential user of flashrom code, so there weren't any downsides to that licensing decision. The wave of "let's GPLv3 all the things" seems to mostly have subsided now.
The decision of the preferred license for new files is hard. I think both GPLv2 and GPLv2+ are reasonable at first glance, but I feel uncomforable deciding this without reassessing the situation in detail.
As Stefan said, with some parts of flashrom being GPLv2-only there is not much incentive to look further...
Regards, Carl-Daniel
On 29.01.2018 23:12, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Hi Nico,
On 27.01.2018 15:49, Nico Huber wrote:
Hi Stefan,
On 26.01.2018 23:43, Stefan Tauner wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 18:51:46 +0100 Nico Huber nico.h@gmx.de wrote:
Hi folks,
I've just noticed that most of flashrom is licensed under GPLv2 + any later version, while about a third of the code base is GPLv2 only. I wonder if that is intentional, or if any of the license headers was just copy pasted and spread too much?
Hi,
using GPLv2 code in a GPLv2+ project is perfectly fine: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#compat-matrix-footnote-2
of course. But given that people ask from time to time about libflashrom GPLv2 might not be the only license involved.
Not sure about the "spread factor" but there are certainly *some* parts that are GPLv2 so there is not much incentive to look further IMHO...
Not to completely unify the licensing, no. But flashrom is rather flexible concerning what is build into the binary. So we could still strive to make it GPLv2+ in its core or something.
Also, I am wondering if I should encourage contributors that add new files to make it GPLv2+ or not.
The decision to have parts of flashrom licensed unter GPLv2-only was a response to some external people wanting to add GPLv3+ code to the code base (or create a GPLv3/GPLv3+ fork for purely political reasons) many years ago. That would have made flashrom unusable for GPLv2-only projects, which would have been a bad thing for coreboot. Back then, I had asked RMS for advice on how to prevent a hostile GPLv3+ takeover of a GPLv2+ codebase, and he told me that this was impossible for GPLv2+ code. Due to that, we kept parts of flashrom licensed under GPLv2-only. Back then, there was no GPLv3+ licensed project which would have qualified as potential user of flashrom code, so there weren't any downsides to that licensing decision.
Thanks for the elaboration. It's good to know that it was intentional.
The wave of "let's GPLv3 all the things" seems to mostly have subsided now.
The decision of the preferred license for new files is hard. I think both GPLv2 and GPLv2+ are reasonable at first glance, but I feel uncomforable deciding this without reassessing the situation in detail.
Well, when I discovered the current situation, my first thought was, omg what license is fwupd under. Because Richard Hughes intends to use lib- flashrom there. Fortunately, it's (L)GPLv2+. Second thought, what we do at secunet with coreboot updates in the payload would be impossible with GRUB and flashrom.
As Stefan said, with some parts of flashrom being GPLv2-only there is not much incentive to look further...
I don't see it that final. Code can be relicensed, or rewritten if we'd decide that some parts or all flashrom should have a different license.
It depends much on how seriously we take libflashrom, IMHO. GPLv2+ might make a lot more use cases possible.
Nico
-
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
Nico Huber -
Stefan Tauner