Re: [opensuse-packaging] is ghostscript able to be updated to 8.70 was GPL v3 question
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 07:17:17AM +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
On 01/16/2010 03:48 PM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 03:33:28PM +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 02:20:13PM +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
Hi, I've come across my first license problem with ghostscript-8.70, it has switched to GPL v3. There are a lot of packages that depend on ghostscript, lilypond being one and apparently TeXLive sub packages. How are problems like this resolved. Having an old ghostscript version isn't good for attracting people to the distro. I'm totally in the dark about these things but as a packager I need to know about them.
As long as the program calls "gs" via system it is just use and does not impose license requirements the calling programs.
Most of those programs do it that way.
I am not aware that ghostscript exposes libraries?
I am not aware that ghostscript exposes libraries?
Yes, it does -lgs and -lijs, package ghostscript-library
The above is added for the factory list
This post follows :-
I have a complete gs-8.70 package waiting to be submitted but what happens in a case like this? Is ghostscript doomed to packman or even worse out of linux altogether or is there a way of sorting this issue out. Fedora already has gs-8.70, maybe they overlooked the fact that the license had changed. It would take a few linux distros to make the ghostscript people change back to v2. List of affected files, I can find :- Uses gs_lib : capi4hylafax, hylafax
Those will just call the binary, so it is "use".
Uses pstoraster : gutenprint
same.
Uses libgs.so : foomatic-filters, libspectre1 Uses libijs.so: gutenprint
foomatic-filters is GPLv2 or later (so I think it can use GPLv3 libraries). libspectre same. gutenprint same.
I will try to find a verbal statement from our license guys next week, but to my not so trained eyes it looks fine to do.
Ciao, Marcus
I've done some research and gnu.org has a chart which states that GPLv2 only, take note they specify only so I'm not sure if the license needs to state only, is incompatible with any GPLv3 or LGPLv3 license. Libspectre is fine because it has a statement in it's README that says "GPLv2 or later" which is compatible. Foomatic-filters on the other hand doesn't state anything other than "copyright (C) 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc." and has a copy of GPLv2, so whether this implies later or only is something for the legal department. Looking at the chart GPLv2 only isn't 100% compatible with any other license. Foomatic-filters cannot exist without libgs so if there is a problem they need to address it. Regards Dave P
The sources of foomatic-filters have a copy of COPYING as only indication of its license. This COPYING file suggests "GPL v2 or later" and as the individual sources files do not have copyright headers this mentioning applies. The author should put COPYING headers as suggested in his .c and .h files of course. foomatic-filters has: License: GPL v2 or later in its RPM header. This also matches the internal license scan results. I talked to our license guys and for "GPL v2 or later" using gs in GPL v3 mode is fine. If those in turn provide libraries, they are however GPL v3 after compilation. So foomatic-filters is fine to use with the libgs library. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On 01/18/2010 05:26 PM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 07:17:17AM +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
On 01/16/2010 03:48 PM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 03:33:28PM +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 02:20:13PM +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
Hi, I've come across my first license problem with ghostscript-8.70, it has switched to GPL v3. There are a lot of packages that depend on ghostscript, lilypond being one and apparently TeXLive sub packages. How are problems like this resolved. Having an old ghostscript version isn't good for attracting people to the distro. I'm totally in the dark about these things but as a packager I need to know about them.
As long as the program calls "gs" via system it is just use and does not impose license requirements the calling programs.
Most of those programs do it that way.
I am not aware that ghostscript exposes libraries?
I am not aware that ghostscript exposes libraries?
Yes, it does -lgs and -lijs, package ghostscript-library
The above is added for the factory list
This post follows :-
I have a complete gs-8.70 package waiting to be submitted but what happens in a case like this? Is ghostscript doomed to packman or even worse out of linux altogether or is there a way of sorting this issue out. Fedora already has gs-8.70, maybe they overlooked the fact that the license had changed. It would take a few linux distros to make the ghostscript people change back to v2. List of affected files, I can find :- Uses gs_lib : capi4hylafax, hylafax
Those will just call the binary, so it is "use".
Uses pstoraster : gutenprint
same.
Uses libgs.so : foomatic-filters, libspectre1 Uses libijs.so: gutenprint
foomatic-filters is GPLv2 or later (so I think it can use GPLv3 libraries). libspectre same. gutenprint same.
I will try to find a verbal statement from our license guys next week, but to my not so trained eyes it looks fine to do.
Ciao, Marcus
I've done some research and gnu.org has a chart which states that GPLv2 only, take note they specify only so I'm not sure if the license needs to state only, is incompatible with any GPLv3 or LGPLv3 license. Libspectre is fine because it has a statement in it's README that says "GPLv2 or later" which is compatible. Foomatic-filters on the other hand doesn't state anything other than "copyright (C) 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc." and has a copy of GPLv2, so whether this implies later or only is something for the legal department. Looking at the chart GPLv2 only isn't 100% compatible with any other license. Foomatic-filters cannot exist without libgs so if there is a problem they need to address it. Regards Dave P
The sources of foomatic-filters have a copy of COPYING as only indication of its license. This COPYING file suggests "GPL v2 or later" and as the individual sources files do not have copyright headers this mentioning applies. The author should put COPYING headers as suggested in his .c and .h files of course.
foomatic-filters has: License: GPL v2 or later
in its RPM header. This also matches the internal license scan results.
I talked to our license guys and for "GPL v2 or later" using gs in GPL v3 mode is fine. If those in turn provide libraries, they are however GPL v3 after compilation.
So foomatic-filters is fine to use with the libgs library.
Ciao, Marcus
There's one aspect of ghostscript-8.70 that I don't quite know what to put in the License: part ghostscript-omni is built from Omni which is LGPLv2.1 or later. The gnu chart states that one is allowed to convert LGPLv2.1 or later into GPLv3 and from that I would understand that either all references to LGPLv2.1 must be removed or it's alright to simply put the licence in as GNUv3. Regards Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
The sources of foomatic-filters have a copy of COPYING as only indication of its license. This COPYING file suggests "GPL v2 or later" and as the individual sources files do not have copyright headers this mentioning applies. The author should put COPYING headers as suggested in his .c and .h files of course.
foomatic-filters has: License: GPL v2 or later
in its RPM header. This also matches the internal license scan results.
I talked to our license guys and for "GPL v2 or later" using gs in GPL v3 mode is fine. If those in turn provide libraries, they are however GPL v3 after compilation.
So foomatic-filters is fine to use with the libgs library.
Ciao, Marcus
There's one aspect of ghostscript-8.70 that I don't quite know what to put in the License: part ghostscript-omni is built from Omni which is LGPLv2.1 or later. The gnu chart states that one is allowed to convert LGPLv2.1 or later into GPLv3 and from that I would understand that either all references to LGPLv2.1 must be removed or it's alright to simply put the licence in as GNUv3.
The built binary package would be under GPLv3 or later license then, yes (and no longer under GPLv2 or later). If in turn this would provide libraries the dependend packages would also turn into that. Please do not think so much about licenses, it will just make your head explode if not carefully studied over the years ;) Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On 01/18/2010 06:17 PM, Marcus Meissner wrote:
The sources of foomatic-filters have a copy of COPYING as only indication of its license. This COPYING file suggests "GPL v2 or later" and as the individual sources files do not have copyright headers this mentioning applies. The author should put COPYING headers as suggested in his .c and .h files of course.
foomatic-filters has: License: GPL v2 or later
in its RPM header. This also matches the internal license scan results.
I talked to our license guys and for "GPL v2 or later" using gs in GPL v3 mode is fine. If those in turn provide libraries, they are however GPL v3 after compilation.
So foomatic-filters is fine to use with the libgs library.
Ciao, Marcus
There's one aspect of ghostscript-8.70 that I don't quite know what to put in the License: part ghostscript-omni is built from Omni which is LGPLv2.1 or later. The gnu chart states that one is allowed to convert LGPLv2.1 or later into GPLv3 and from that I would understand that either all references to LGPLv2.1 must be removed or it's alright to simply put the licence in as GNUv3.
The built binary package would be under GPLv3 or later license then, yes (and no longer under GPLv2 or later). If in turn this would provide libraries the dependend packages would also turn into that.
Please do not think so much about licenses, it will just make your head explode if not carefully studied over the years ;)
Ciao, Marcus
That's completed my license education, now for something new :-) Thanks for the help. Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Jan 18, 10 17:17:08 +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote:
There's one aspect of ghostscript-8.70 that I don't quite know what to put in the License: part ghostscript-omni is built from Omni which is LGPLv2.1 or later. The gnu chart states that one is allowed to convert LGPLv2.1 or later into GPLv3 and from that I would understand that either all references to LGPLv2.1 must be removed or it's alright to simply put the licence in as GNUv3.
We dont do it like that, we always keep the original license as is. Where and how a conversion is needed is always left as an exercise to the end user, so that the entire construct remains visible. I believe, that editing a license (even where technically correct) causes more confustion than good.
Please do not think so much about licenses, it will just make your head explode if not carefully studied over the years ;)
Right. But questions are always welcome. I'll reassign carefully in my team so that those exposions dont hit important people :-) cheers, JW- -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 __/ (____/ /\ (/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On 01/18/2010 10:41 PM, Juergen Weigert wrote:
On Jan 18, 10 17:17:08 +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote:
There's one aspect of ghostscript-8.70 that I don't quite know what to put in the License: part ghostscript-omni is built from Omni which is LGPLv2.1 or later. The gnu chart states that one is allowed to convert LGPLv2.1 or later into GPLv3 and from that I would understand that either all references to LGPLv2.1 must be removed or it's alright to simply put the licence in as GNUv3.
We dont do it like that, we always keep the original license as is. Where and how a conversion is needed is always left as an exercise to the end user, so that the entire construct remains visible.
I believe, that editing a license (even where technically correct) causes more confustion than good.
So the License: in the spec file for ghostscript-omni is supposed to be? :- a) The same as the actual license in the Omni directory of the source - LGPLv2.1 or b) The same as the ghostscript-8.70 license - GPLv3 Regards Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On 01/19/2010 09:29 AM, Dave Plater wrote:
On 01/18/2010 10:41 PM, Juergen Weigert wrote:
On Jan 18, 10 17:17:08 +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote:
There's one aspect of ghostscript-8.70 that I don't quite know what to put in the License: part ghostscript-omni is built from Omni which is LGPLv2.1 or later. The gnu chart states that one is allowed to convert LGPLv2.1 or later into GPLv3 and from that I would understand that either all references to LGPLv2.1 must be removed or it's alright to simply put the licence in as GNUv3.
We dont do it like that, we always keep the original license as is. Where and how a conversion is needed is always left as an exercise to the end user, so that the entire construct remains visible.
I believe, that editing a license (even where technically correct) causes more confustion than good.
So the License: in the spec file for ghostscript-omni is supposed to be? :- a) The same as the actual license in the Omni directory of the source - LGPLv2.1 or b) The same as the ghostscript-8.70 license - GPLv3 Regards Dave P
Sorry I must add that in this case Omni is a separate tarball that is added to ghostsript pre build. Regards Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On Jan 19, 10 09:29:48 +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
So the License: in the spec file for ghostscript-omni is supposed to be? :- a) The same as the actual license in the Omni directory of the source - LGPLv2.1
ghostscript-8.70.tar.bz2/ghostscript-8.70/contrib/gomni.c is LGPLv2.1 I could not find an omni directory in the source.
or b) The same as the ghostscript-8.70 license - GPLv3
The header files linked into gomni.c appear to be under artifex license. Which I will consider to be GPLv2+ for our purposes. I assume that ghostscript-omni only contains one driver binary. Technically correct is then: LGPLv2.1 & GPLv2+ [& ...] Add more licenses [& ...], as you find them being for everything that is integrated into the omni-binary. If and how the end construct of that mix is sane, is a second question. Sigh. cheers, JW- -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 __/ (____/ /\ (/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On 01/19/2010 07:39 PM, Juergen Weigert wrote:
On Jan 19, 10 09:29:48 +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
So the License: in the spec file for ghostscript-omni is supposed to be? :- a) The same as the actual license in the Omni directory of the source - LGPLv2.1
ghostscript-8.70.tar.bz2/ghostscript-8.70/contrib/gomni.c is LGPLv2.1 I could not find an omni directory in the source.
It's unpacked from Omni-0.9.2.tar.bz2 in the %prep stage and built separately in the same spec file and results in quite a few libraries, if you look at the tale end of the build log you can see them, one for each printer.
or b) The same as the ghostscript-8.70 license - GPLv3
The header files linked into gomni.c appear to be under artifex license. Which I will consider to be GPLv2+ for our purposes.
Artifex is the company that makes ghostscript and they license the free version under GPLv3, used to be v2+, that's how this thread started.
I assume that ghostscript-omni only contains one driver binary. Technically correct is then:
LGPLv2.1 & GPLv2+ [& ...]
Add more licenses [& ...], as you find them being for everything that is integrated into the omni-binary. If and how the end construct of that mix is sane, is a second question. Sigh.
cheers, JW-
GNU maintains that their licenses makes distribution and using software easy :-) I'll follow your guidlines. Thanks Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
On 01/19/2010 07:39 PM, Juergen Weigert wrote:
On Jan 19, 10 09:29:48 +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
So the License: in the spec file for ghostscript-omni is supposed to be? :- a) The same as the actual license in the Omni directory of the source - LGPLv2.1
ghostscript-8.70.tar.bz2/ghostscript-8.70/contrib/gomni.c is LGPLv2.1 I could not find an omni directory in the source.
or b) The same as the ghostscript-8.70 license - GPLv3
The header files linked into gomni.c appear to be under artifex license. Which I will consider to be GPLv2+ for our purposes.
I assume that ghostscript-omni only contains one driver binary. Technically correct is then:
LGPLv2.1 & GPLv2+ [& ...]
Add more licenses [& ...], as you find them being for everything that is integrated into the omni-binary. If and how the end construct of that mix is sane, is a second question. Sigh.
cheers, JW-
Here's foomatc's solution :- Problem is solved now in the BZR repository of foomatic-filters. Lars Uebernickel has changed the code from using libgs to calling Ghostscript on the command line. Using libgs is not needed, the libgs API has no advantages against the command line call of Ghostscript. Also the licensing is clarified, it is "GPLv2 or later", as it already was with Foomatic 3.x. Till Dave Plater wrote:
Hi, I package for openSUSE and I've stumbled upon a licensing problem. Foomatic-filters might be licensed under GPLv2 only, I've examined the package and there isn't anything apart from the COPYING file that clarifies the issue. If foomatic-filters uses "GPLv2 only" then it cannot use libgs from ghostscript-8.70 due to the fact that ghostscript have switched to GPLv3. Regards Dave P _______________________________________________ Printing-foomatic mailing list Printing-foomatic@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/printing-foomatic Regards Dave P
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
participants (3)
-
Dave Plater -
Juergen Weigert -
Marcus Meissner