[dev] Horde library license headers (notices from SUSE Legal) - please advise

[Ralf Lang]

Am Montag, 29. August 2011, 18:59:48 schrieb Michael J Rubinsky:
> Quoting Ralf Lang <lang at b1-systems.de>:
> >> Sorry. I've been on vacation for the last week and have been pretty
> >> much out of touch with no connectivity. I don't have time to get
> >> caught up on all the backlog of email before this hurricane hits us,
> >> but am trying to answer the more pressing emails before we get hit
> >> with this storm.
> > 
> > Hope you get through it without any damages. News sounds horrible.
> 
> Thanks. We came through with relatively little damage. It could have
> been a lot worse.
Good to hear

> >> When I more-or-less took over maintaining Ansel, the Exifer code was
> >> already incorporated into Ansel. The original code was released under
> >> the GPL (but is no longer maintained by the original author - it was
> >> adopted by zenphoto.org, still under the GPL). This is why the notice
> >> appears in the Ansel CREDITS doc. This should probably be moved
> >> somewhere more appropriate - maybe
> >> http://wiki.horde.org/Doc/Dev/CopyrightLicense ?
> >> 
> >> Likewise, when I started maintaining Horde_Image, it was already
> >> released under the LGPL. For Horde 4, I moved the Exifer code to
> >> Horde_Image, where I thought it really belonged, but failed to notice
> >> the licensing discrepancy.
> >> 
> >> Personally, I don't like the LGPL, but as I said above, Horde_Image
> >> was already licensed that way when I started work on it. So, suffice
> >> to say, I wouldn't mind if, going forward, it is released as GPL.
> >> Though I have to admit I don't know enough about licensing changes to
> >> know if this is possible.
> >> 
> >> OTOH, The Exifer code in question is only one of a few possible
> >> drivers for working with EXIF data, so theoretically, one could not
> >> include it if it is being used in a way that violates the GPL
> >> licensing. OTOOH, the orginal author did give us permission to
> >> incorporate it into Horde - though he is no longer the maintainer.
> > 
> > I think as long as the authors of the Horde_Image code agree, there's
> > nothing stopping you from licensing it as GPL. On the other hand, if the
> > library is LGPL and uses GPL code, this should also be no problem by
> > itself. Users just need to know that GPL parts are included.
> 
> At the very least, I would like this to be released under either LGPL
> 2.1 or GPL 2. My guess is that these links are just outdated, i.e.,
> they were never updated to point to the older license when the newer
> version 3 licenses were released. I don't recall any discussion as a
> group on moving to any of the version 3 gnu licenses. There are other
> examples of this in our code, mostly in older libraries.
> 
> We should decide on this as part of the process of updating the
> copyright/license headers to point to a local copy of the license
> used. I believe that was another thread we were discussing, correct?

Yes, these are three separate issues:

* Shipping license files at all (I think jan has voted for it and it would 
help me, too)
* Ambiguous links and codes for GPL and LGPL versions in files and metadata
* outdated versions of the GPL2/LPGL-2.1 files shipped with H3 files

In fact I only know of Horde_Ldap as explicitly labeled LGPL-3.0. The rest is 
just defaulting to the most recent GPL/LGPL link (though some are fixed by 
now).

If there is a decision in any direction I'd volunteer some time to get at 
least framework/* and the released apps straight. I guess it's biting me more 
than most others involved.

-- 
Ralf Lang
Linux Consultant / Developer

B1 Systems GmbH
Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg / http://www.b1-systems.de
GF: Ralph Dehner / Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537