No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah [LWN.net]

Savannah is a SourceForge-like repository site run by the GNU project. Debian developer Francesco Poli recently tried to host a project there, but was turned down. The reason: the license used is version 2 (only) of the GPL. As can be seen on the project page, GPLv2 is no longer considered to be an acceptable license.

to post comments

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 22, 2006 16:43 UTC (Wed) by alan (subscriber, #4018) [Link] (12 responses)

Seems like you have to keep up to date with latest political party line

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 22, 2006 16:55 UTC (Wed) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link]

Remember all GPL code is equal, but some GPL code is more equal than others.

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 22, 2006 17:04 UTC (Wed) by HenrikH (subscriber, #31152) [Link] (3 responses)

Isn't savannah supposed to be hosting for GNU projects, aka FSF's official projects. If so then it isn't so surprising that they turn down a gplv2-only project.

There is however a savannah.nongnu.net that probably would accept this project(?)

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 22, 2006 17:19 UTC (Wed) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link]

They're concerned about GNU projects being legally incompatible with each other in the future. It looks like submitting your code to that page means that you want it integrated into the GNU project.

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 22, 2006 19:31 UTC (Wed) by piman (guest, #8957) [Link] (1 responses)

He applied for the non-GNU section as far as I can tell (they use the same *forge installation):

> Type:
> -----
> non-GNU software & documentation

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 22, 2006 21:27 UTC (Wed) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link]

Oh. In that case, it's a bit troubling.

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 22, 2006 20:52 UTC (Wed) by xtifr (guest, #143) [Link] (6 responses)

Certainly to understand either side in this matter, you have to be up on the latest political issues. But lets not try to pretend that the politicking is all on the GNU Project's side! Trying to host a GPLv2-only project on Savannah seems like a politically motivated move in the first place.

This guy's a Debian developer. Debian has its own, fairly-well publicized, Sourceforge clone, Alioth. Why would this guy be trying to use Savannah instead of Alioth, unless he was trying to play politics?

How would you feel if a member of the GNU project were complaining because the Debian Project didn't allow hosting a GDFL-licensed, with-invariant-sections project on Alioth?

Or maybe you think the Debian Project (and its members) are above politics? Pardon me, but as a long-time member of the Debian project myself, I just fell out of my chair laughing at the notion. :)

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 22, 2006 21:27 UTC (Wed) by beoba (guest, #16942) [Link]

I recommend obtaining a new chair.

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 23, 2006 3:21 UTC (Thu) by joey (guest, #328) [Link]

> This guy's a Debian developer. Debian has its own, fairly-well publicized, > Sourceforge clone, Alioth. Why would this guy be trying to use Savannah
> instead of Alioth, unless he was trying to play politics?

In that hypothetical case, before assuming someone was playing politics, I'd think: Maybe he wasn't working on a Debian-related project, thought that Savannah seemed the best place for his project and sent a courtesy post to debian-legal since that list is still mulling over gpl 3 and so has an obvious interest in how quickly the FSF is adopting it?

When I signed up to be a Debian developer, I did not sign up to limit myself to working exclusively on that project, nor did I sign up to be accused of playing politics.

(FYI, Francesco Poli is not a Debian developer, and the project, "markonvert", deals with Fortran, which is not especially relevant to most of Debian.)

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 23, 2006 20:47 UTC (Thu) by vondo (guest, #256) [Link] (3 responses)

It needn't be politicking at all. I just submitted my project to Savannah because I want hosting somewhere and I want something that I figure will be around for a while and won't try to "upsell" me to something else.

My project happens to be V2 only. Why? V2 does exactly what I want it to. I don't want to let someone eles dictate either more or less free (and you can decide for yourself which category GPL3 fits into) terms that my code can be distributed under. When V3 comes out and I have time to understand the differences, I may check with my other contributors and ask them to go to V3, but there is no way I am going to agree, right now, that *anything* FSF does is OK.

At the moment, it seems that V3 is more restrictive than V2, the the V2 or later clause is fine. But maybe V3 or V4 will introduce some right that I don't want or maybe someone will take my V2 or later code, co-mingle it with V3 code and then distribute it under a V3 license. Maybe I don't want that.

But all that aside, I didn't submit my project with that license to make a political point, as you assume this person did. I did it because I want a nice home for my project.

Eric

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 24, 2006 9:40 UTC (Fri) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] (2 responses)

I can certainly understand where you're coming from, but it honestly seems to me more trouble that way than the other.

If you want to go to GPL v3 later, you need permission from every contributor. Maybe for your project, that isn't tough, but for some it's impossible, and the longer your project runs, the more difficult it gets.

On the other hand, if you use the 'or later' clause, and decide that you don't really like v3 when it comes out, you can move to v2 only license unilaterally. No fuss, no muss. If anyone else wants to, they can fork and continue their own version under v3 too, of course, but would that even really bother you? And even if it would, you have to weigh that against the pain later if you take the first route, and the likelihood of the FSF ever doing anything really evil with the licensing.

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 23, 2007 15:44 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (guest, #4458) [Link] (1 responses)

On the other hand, if you use the 'or later' clause, and decide that you don't really like v3 when it comes out, you can move to v2 only license unilaterally.

Wrong. That is a change in licensing terms, and must be agreed by everybody involved. Just like the other way around.

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 24, 2007 19:28 UTC (Sat) by liljencrantz (guest, #28458) [Link]

No. You are completely within your right to fork a FSF project such as glibc or emacs under GPLv2 only. Bruce Perens tried to make the same claim you did when Busybox moved to GPLv2 only, but he was shot down. Busybox is a pure GPLv2 project today.

Nice contradiction

Posted Mar 22, 2006 17:27 UTC (Wed) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] (1 responses)

The risk of seeing the FSF release a poorly written v3/v4/... has to be put in balance with the risk of you dying submitly right now and hence preventing reusing the code in future GNU GPL'd projects.

v2 already have the ASP loophole...

So actually the last GPL released by FSF is "poorly written", then why should anyone expect that the chances of the next one being "properly written" is higher than the prompt death of the developer?

Bye,NAR

No contradiction, thanks

Posted Mar 22, 2006 17:53 UTC (Wed) by pyxis (guest, #15886) [Link]

The GPL v2 isn't poorly written, only v2 already have the ASP loophole and will probably show other loopholes as the computer field changes.

As stated, the license upgrade had to deal with new flaws that will happen in the future.

Then, no contradiction neither quality problem, only GPL adaptation to computing evolution.

---
Stefano Spinucci

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 22, 2006 17:30 UTC (Wed) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link] (6 responses)

Sounds fair enough, he can go elsewhere if he want GPLv2 only...

Hosting by Savannah is not a right

Posted Mar 22, 2006 18:09 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] (5 responses)

Exactly as you say: savannah is for GNU projects, and if and when GNU switches to GPLv3, they will not be able to use GPLv2 code. People who don't trust the FSF enough to produce a decent GPLv3 should not expect the FSF to pay to host their projects.

Hosting by Savannah is not a right

Posted Mar 22, 2006 19:21 UTC (Wed) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029) [Link] (4 responses)

What surprises me is that they seem to let submitters specify the license. If they really want to ensure that all projects hosted on savannah have compatible licenses, they should just have a statement along the lines of, "This project is licensed according to the GNU General Public License version 2 or later," with a checkbox for the submitter to ACK.

Hosting by Savannah is not a right

Posted Mar 22, 2006 20:22 UTC (Wed) by xtifr (guest, #143) [Link] (3 responses)

"GPL v2 or later" is not the only GPL-compatible, GNU-compatible license. BSD and MIT licenses (just to take the most obvious examples) are also GPL compatible, and many parts of the GNU project (such as X11) have such licenses.

I have to agree that this seems like a non-story. There are numerous other Sourceforge clones around, including Sourceforge itself, the GNU Project's Savannah, the Debian Project's Alioth and "Gna!" (gna.org). Savannah and Alioth are primarily (if not exclusively) intended for the use of their respective projects. If that bothers you, use another one.

Hosting by Savannah is not a right

Posted Mar 22, 2006 23:48 UTC (Wed) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] (2 responses)

X11 isn't part of the GNU project; the OS uses it, but it isn't part of the project. I would sort of expect the FSF, if they were taking over maintainership of a BSD/MIT-licensed project, to relicense it as LGPL or GPL. At present, according to their directory, there is only one BSD/MIT-style-licensed GNU package: ncurses. They seem to have a few other licenses represented, but very few, and few packages using them.

Hosting by Savannah is not a right

Posted Mar 23, 2006 6:21 UTC (Thu) by xtifr (guest, #143) [Link] (1 responses)

Yes, X11 is part of the GNU project. It is not GNU software, but it is part of the GNU project. They may not have written it, but they adopted it as part of their system, just as (e.g.) Debian did.

From http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html

"Developing a whole system is a very large project. To bring it into reach, I decided to adapt and use existing pieces of free software wherever that was possible. For example, I decided at the very beginning to use TeX as the principal text formatter; a few years later, I decided to use the X Window System rather than writing another window system for GNU."

Hosting by Savannah is not a right

Posted Mar 24, 2007 20:43 UTC (Sat) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

how nice of them to clain other people's work.

you can choose to use other people's software in your distribution, but doing so doesn't make the development of that software 'part of your project'

if it was possible to do this then there would be _NO_ justification for trying to say GNU/Linux, the linux distribution (say Ubuntu) is just 'adopting' glibc, gcc, emacs, etc as part of their project and can now can ignore the people who develop the software.

if a distro were to do this the FSF would be up in arms, however, from the post about X11 they seem to feel that they operate under different rules and can do the same thing to the xfree86 project.

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 22, 2006 20:10 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (13 responses)

It's weird that the rules on the "New Project Registration" page say "Your project does not have to be part of the GNU project or be released under the GPL to be hosted here..." and "we only accept Free Software licenses that are compatible with the GPL". So, apparently they don't consider the GPL to be compatible with the GPL...

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 22, 2006 20:36 UTC (Wed) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] (12 responses)

GPL V2, if stripped of the 'or later versions clause', will not be compatible with GPL V3. That's never been hidden, it's always been known. Even before work on GPL V3 was started, that was expected. No surprise.

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 22, 2006 21:43 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link]

Well, they say "compatible with the GPL", not "compatible with GPLv3" or "compatible with all versions of the GPL". The language (on the New Project page) allowing use of any GPL-compatible license is pretty meaningless if the only thing they actually accept as GPL-compatible is "GPLv* and any later version".

If they have a policy of requiring the "or later" clause, they ought to say so up-front. It would be [very mildly] interesting to know whether there are any existing projects in Savannah that were licensed under a specific version.

[Note that I have no problem with them having such a restriction, if they choose. As noted, there are lots of other repositories available. It's just amusing to see them say that the GPLv2 isn't compatible with the GPL...].

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 22, 2006 21:46 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link] (6 responses)

Also, note that the New Project page contains a link to a list of GPL-Compatible licenses. That list, of course, includes the GPL, without any mention of requiring the optional "or later" clause.

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 23, 2006 1:03 UTC (Thu) by DrHook (guest, #27637) [Link] (5 responses)

I don't follow this issue very closely, but the idea that *anyone* would adopt the *or later* clause without knowing the contents of said *later* license is a bit ridiculous! It's kinda like saying "Here's my code, you may use it under these conditions or any other conditions that the FSF make up as they go!" That would seem to allow the FSF to change the rules and conditions in ways that the original author never intended and would seem to lock that author into a *later* version of the GPL against his/her will.

*IF* I have interpreted this correctly, this would seem to be on par with some of the underhanded and sneaky methods of the evil empire in Redmond.

hook

Better the FSF than the rest of the industry

Posted Mar 23, 2006 3:03 UTC (Thu) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] (4 responses)

It's kinda like saying "Here's my code, you may use it under these conditions or any other conditions that the FSF make up as they go!"

Well, actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. I believe the FSF will work to keep my code Free in the way I intend.

The likelihood of the FSF betraying that trust is roughly that of the Reverend Mr. Falwell opening an abortion clinic.

Better the FSF than the rest of the industry

Posted Mar 23, 2006 9:54 UTC (Thu) by gouyou (guest, #30290) [Link] (1 responses)

Well, actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. I believe the FSF will work to keep my code Free in the way I intend.

The likelihood of the FSF betraying that trust is roughly that of the Reverend Mr. Falwell opening an abortion clinic.

Fine for believers, but if you think that the ASP loophole is a feature and not a bug, then you have a problem. It may happen that your interpretation of freedom will derive from the FSF interpretation of freedom in the future. (Might not be that much a problem as your code is still available under the GPL v2, but later mixing with GPL v3 contribution could land you in legal trouble.)

Better the FSF than the rest of the industry

Posted Mar 23, 2006 9:59 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link]

That's why you say "OR later versions". The end user gets to choose whether he wants to use your code under whatever GPL version he prefers.

Of course, after the FSF has blessed GPLv3 they will want people to change that line to "v3 or later versions" but if you don't like how v3 turned out you can just abstain that change.

Better the FSF than the rest of the industry

Posted Mar 23, 2006 12:41 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

Actually, the FSF is legally obliged to keep your code free...

Well, that might not QUITE be true, but the comment about "or any other conditions that the FSF make up as they go!" is completely off the wall - may I refer you to the GPL v2 for confirmation?

If you read the GPL, you will notice that it says - AS PART OF THE GPL ITSELF - that any revisions will comply with spirit of the current version. So if I release my code under "GPL v2 or later", and then the FSF releases (in twenty years time?) GPL v5 that does *not* comply with the spirit of free software, then I can simply say (with reason) why I consider that v5 is not a true successor to v2. At this point, I now stand a very good chance of going to law and having v5 struck down as a valid licence for my work. Just because it's called the GPL, doesn't mean it's a valid successor. It's got to comply with the explicit promise in v2 for that to be true.

Cheers,
Wol

Better the FSF than the rest of the industry

Posted Mar 23, 2006 23:19 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (guest, #19270) [Link]

Umm, the GPL i a license that an author might choose to use to control distribution of her code. While the FSF controlled the writing of that license, I don't think there's any legal sense in which the "similar in spirit" clause actually constrains the FSF or future versions of the GPL. Nor is there any way an author can "retract" the "or later version" language once the code has been distributed under that license - anybody receiving a version under a license containing the "or any later version" language is free to choose any such version, whether it's in the same spirit or not. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that once you've set the license terms, you're stuck with them (though you could, of course, use different license language for a later version - as the author, you can specify the terms you like each time you distribute the code.

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 23, 2006 12:34 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (3 responses)

I thought v3 was carefully worded so it WAS compatible with v2.

Cheers,
Wol

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 23, 2006 14:54 UTC (Thu) by southey (guest, #9466) [Link] (1 responses)

Nope, the v3 is not fully compatible with v2 at least with the current optional v3 clauses that can be applied. For example, one v3 clause is that the complete code must be released that would include any non-GPL code so a GPL v3 program linked to a source library (nor necessarily closed) that is incompatible under v3 with the complete code cause. This also bites a GPL v2 or later license if the 'or later' aspect is invoked.

Bruce

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 24, 2006 2:46 UTC (Fri) by mepr (guest, #4819) [Link]

If the "or later" clause is included, then who gets to choose which parts of the optional license apply?
If the author, then no it doesn't.
If the user, then it's mostly irrelevant (although it would be interesting if the user chose restrictions the original author didn't like, made changes, and released the new derived work under the more restricted GPL3

Mark

No GPLv2-only projects on Savannah

Posted Mar 23, 2006 17:59 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (guest, #4458) [Link]

Impossible. Either it grants you the exact same as GPLv2 does, or it takes away something. If the former, why bother. If the later, it is not compatible, by definition. Besides, the draft as circulated has the option of creating variants of GPLv3 (with extra restrictions) that will end up being incompatible among them...

Besides, my code might be GPLv2, but if GPLv3 contributions seep in, the only valid license for the whole is GPLv3 (as it is more restrictive than GPLv2). Just like Linux has BSD licenced pieces, but the whole must be handled as GPLed.

Is this really an issue?

Posted Mar 24, 2006 8:17 UTC (Fri) by lilo (guest, #661) [Link]

Since the FSF believes that an update of the GPL is needed, and is working hard to make sure a usable one is produced, why wouldn't they want to limit their hosting service to projects which allow the use of the new license?

It's nice that the author of the application wanted to host his project on the FSF's service, but surely there are plenty of other community hosting services out there that would be more appropriate, if he wants to use an older license.

Everyone has lots of choices. That seems like a good thing.