Harald Welte
2014-09-11 05:39:40 UTC
Hi Steve and Max,
sorry for catching up that late. It is only now in my holidays that I
finally am able to find some time to read through the osmocom mailing
lists again.
libosmocore was started as a GPLv2+ project, in order to ensure maximum
compatibility to a variety of applications. Some free software
applications out there are still GPLv2, and we want them to be able to
use libosmocore.
* libosmocodec is pure GPLv2+
* libosmoctrl is pure GPLv2+
* libosmovty is pure GPLv2+
1) libosmogb
Most of the hits are in libosmogb, as the libosmogb code was first
developed as part of (AGPLv3+) OpenBSC/OsmoSGSN and then migrated to
libosmocore.git reporitory to be also used from osmo-pcu, not just from
the SGSN side.
The majority of the osmo-pcu codebase appears to be GPLv2+, so linking
with a GPLv3+ libosmogb is fine. However, an AGPL libosmogb would not
be suitable.
I've reviewed the copyright ownership /authorship situation of libosmogb
and see if we can make sure that all authors agree to a GPLv3+ licensing
of it. Based on the review, we have the following copyright holders:
* Harald Welte
* Holger Freyther
* sysmocom (Jacob, Holger?)
* Andreas Eversberg
Holger/Andreas:
* Would you agree to license libosmogb under GPLv2+ or GPLv3+?
* Do you have any preference regarding v2+ or v3+?
2) libosmocore: strrb.c / loggingrb.c
These are the only two files of libosmocore, which claim to be GPLv3+.
I would personally consider this a mistake at the time, but I've
included Katerina in the Cc.
Holger/Katerina:
* Do you remember how and why this code states it is GPLv3+ instead of
the usual GPLv2+ in libosmocore?
* Was this intentional or a mistake?
* Irrespective of the past, would you agree to license strrb/loggingrb
under GPLv2+? If yes, I will commit the related code change
3) libosmogsm: gsm0411_smc.c und gsm0411_smr.c
This is due to jolly first writing them as part of osmoocomBB and then
later moving them to libosmocore.
Jolly: Can you please confirm if you are willing to license them under
GPLv2+ instead of GPLv3+ as indicated in the source code?
4) libosmogsm: the imported milenage code.
it is GPLv2 or BSD, so we have to use it under BSD license.
This should be indicated somewhere explicitly.
Regards,
Harald
sorry for catching up that late. It is only now in my holidays that I
finally am able to find some time to read through the osmocom mailing
lists again.
I've just noticed (yepp, I'm very observant :) that COPYING in
libosmocore is GPLv2. Is there any particular reason we still do
not use GPLv3?
libosmocore is GPLv2. Is there any particular reason we still do
not use GPLv3?
compatibility to a variety of applications. Some free software
applications out there are still GPLv2, and we want them to be able to
use libosmocore.
* libosmocodec is pure GPLv2+
* libosmoctrl is pure GPLv2+
* libosmovty is pure GPLv2+
Good point, git grep "either version 3" actually shows that there are
quite some files that are GPLv3+, so the compiled and linked binaries
already make use of the "or any later version" of the other GPLv2+
licensed files.
This is actually a problem, and one that needs fixing.quite some files that are GPLv3+, so the compiled and linked binaries
already make use of the "or any later version" of the other GPLv2+
licensed files.
1) libosmogb
Most of the hits are in libosmogb, as the libosmogb code was first
developed as part of (AGPLv3+) OpenBSC/OsmoSGSN and then migrated to
libosmocore.git reporitory to be also used from osmo-pcu, not just from
the SGSN side.
The majority of the osmo-pcu codebase appears to be GPLv2+, so linking
with a GPLv3+ libosmogb is fine. However, an AGPL libosmogb would not
be suitable.
I've reviewed the copyright ownership /authorship situation of libosmogb
and see if we can make sure that all authors agree to a GPLv3+ licensing
of it. Based on the review, we have the following copyright holders:
* Harald Welte
* Holger Freyther
* sysmocom (Jacob, Holger?)
* Andreas Eversberg
Holger/Andreas:
* Would you agree to license libosmogb under GPLv2+ or GPLv3+?
* Do you have any preference regarding v2+ or v3+?
2) libosmocore: strrb.c / loggingrb.c
These are the only two files of libosmocore, which claim to be GPLv3+.
I would personally consider this a mistake at the time, but I've
included Katerina in the Cc.
Holger/Katerina:
* Do you remember how and why this code states it is GPLv3+ instead of
the usual GPLv2+ in libosmocore?
* Was this intentional or a mistake?
* Irrespective of the past, would you agree to license strrb/loggingrb
under GPLv2+? If yes, I will commit the related code change
3) libosmogsm: gsm0411_smc.c und gsm0411_smr.c
This is due to jolly first writing them as part of osmoocomBB and then
later moving them to libosmocore.
Jolly: Can you please confirm if you are willing to license them under
GPLv2+ instead of GPLv3+ as indicated in the source code?
4) libosmogsm: the imported milenage code.
it is GPLv2 or BSD, so we have to use it under BSD license.
This should be indicated somewhere explicitly.
So replacing COPYING with GPLv3 definitely would make sense imho.
See above, the devil is in the details, it's not that simple.Regards,
Harald
--
- Harald Welte <***@gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
- Harald Welte <***@gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)