taskSavannah Administration - Tasks: task #5204, Submission of markonvert

 
 

task #5204: Submission of markonvert

Submitted by:  Francesco Poli <frx>
Submitted on:  Tue 24 Jan 2006 12:23:56 AM UTC  
 
Should Start On: Mon 23 Jan 2006 11:00:00 PM UTCShould be Finished on: Thu 02 Feb 2006 11:00:00 PM UTC
Category: Project ApprovalPriority: 5 - Normal
Status: CancelledPrivacy: Public
Percent Complete: 0%Assigned to: Sebastian Wieseler <kickino>
Open/Closed: ClosedEffort: 0.00

Add a New Comment (Rich MarkupRich Markup):
   

You are not logged in

Please log in, so followups can be emailed to you.

 

(Jump to the original submission Jump to the original submission)

Sat 25 Mar 2006 04:33:09 PM UTC, comment #12:

I know that the FSF promised that new versions of the GPL will be similar in spirit to the present one (it's written in GPLv2, section 9.).
Unfortunately, looking at the first public draft of GPLv3, I cannot see any clear indication that the FSF is willing to actually keep that promise... :-(

Anyway, this is not the appropriate place to discuss the merits and flaws of GPLv3 drafts.
I've already expressed my opinions at http://gplv3.fsf.org/

What you've been trying to do here is persuading me to publish my work under yet unknown licenses (any later version!).
I doubt you will convince me by handwaving and by pointing out supposed weaknesses in the GPLv2 copyleft (such as the so-called ASP loophole).
What you (that is, the FSF) can do to persuade me to release works under the GPLv3 is publishing a good GPLv3 final text, suitable for licensing true Free Software.
Until I read (and like) the GPLv3 final published text, I won't give permission to relicense under v3.

Regards,

Francesco Poli <frx>
Thu 23 Mar 2006 08:27:10 PM UTC, comment #11:

Hmm, I happen to have said that at #savannah, but not exactly in this context :)

Sylvain Beucler <Beuc>
Thu 23 Mar 2006 08:08:56 PM UTC, comment #10:

Hello Poli again.

I should have told you some more facts:

  • the text of the GNU GPL says that the future versions of the GNU GPL will be under the same spirit published by the FSF

=> which essentially prevent the FSF from dropping the copyleft, that is the very essence of the GNU GPL

  • and because of the incompatibility with v2 and v3 it is simply impossible to LINK or INCLUDE v2 in v3 code.

So it is very important for us that you release your code under "vX or any later version".

And if you still disagree - please don't go to Slashdot (or again to ProLinux) with that story. Our policy because of GPLv2 is very very old, and your project is not the first and will be not the last one which was rejected because of the intollerance to agree with GPLvX-or-any-later.

Or to say it with Sylvain's words:
"And if you disagree, I fuck you all deep nonetheless"

Sebastian Wieseler <kickino>
Project MemberIn charge of this item.
Tue 21 Mar 2006 10:43:18 PM UTC, comment #9:

Hello.

So we MUST close your submission on this point. We are dead locked.

But please notice short notes:
- releasing your code under the GPL doesn't give the FSF any rights on it
- GPLv3 is not the issue but GPL vX or any later, think of version 23 or 42...
- GPLv2 and GPLv3 will be incompatible

But nevertheless we cannot accept your project with GNU GPL v2 only and you are not willing to change your license, so I had to close this submission. Sorry.

Regards,

Sebastian Wieseler <kickino>
Project MemberIn charge of this item.
Tue 21 Mar 2006 10:09:18 PM UTC, comment #8:

What if I don't consider the so-called ASP loophole as an issue?
What if I don't want to (allow other people) restrict private use of my code, not even on a public network node?
You are assuming that I regard GPLv2 as too weak a copyleft: how can you be sure I do?

But anyway, let's not miss the point of this discussion.
Do you realize that you are asking me to give you (the FSF) the right to arbitrarily relicense my program?
I think this is really asking too much.
If I wanted to give others (FSF or whoever) the right to add arbitrary restrictions to my code, I would release under a non-copyleft license, wouldn't I?

The "risk" of me dying right now (thanks for the death wish!) and leaving my program under GPLv2 only is not a Freeness issue.
My GPLv2'd program will not suddenly become non-free, just because GPLv3 is out.
Reusing my code in GPLv3'd projects won't be possible, just like reusing it in proprietary "All Rights Reserved" projects. That's a feature, not a bug.
I will relicense my program under GPLv3, if and only if I like the final text of GPLv3.

Francesco Poli <frx>
Sun 19 Mar 2006 04:43:49 PM UTC, comment #7:

Not because you use the GNU GPL v2, but because you only use the GNU GPL version 2 (let's not simplify things).

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 and will probably show other loopholes as the computer field changes, so copyleft is at stake wherever you look.

Sylvain Beucler <Beuc>
Sun 19 Mar 2006 04:31:54 PM UTC, comment #6:

Are you really saying that Savannah won't accept my project because it's under the GNU GPL version 2 ?!?

That is to say, just because it's not upgradeable to any future version of the GPL license?

What if I don't like GPLv3, when the final text is out?
I cannot be sure I will like it, at the moment...

For instance, the AfferoGPL, that you mention as the "prototype" for the strategy to deal with the so-called ASP-loophole, addresses this "loophole" with a badly written and non-free clause, IMHO.

I'm not willing to give the FSF a blanket permission to add arbitrary restrictions and/or permissions to derivative works of my code.
The whole point of copyleft is denying such possibility!

Regards,

Francesco Poli <frx>
Thu 16 Mar 2006 11:07:49 PM UTC, comment #5:

Hello.

Please publish your software under GPL 2 or any later version.

The reasons to mention are: The license upgrade had to deal with new flaws that will happen in the future (e.g. ASPs will be dealt with in GPLv3, AfferoGPL being a prototype for this).
If there is not GPLv2 or later, there will be a license upgrade problem for users of the code (especially if the author is not reachable anymore).

So could you please assign to GPL 2 or any later version?
Or should we skip your registration on this point? We cannot accept GPLv2 only, because of the reasons mentioned above.

Regards,

Sebastian Wieseler <kickino>
Project MemberIn charge of this item.
Wed 15 Mar 2006 10:23:37 PM UTC, comment #4:

Hello!

I am well aware of the difficulties that a relicensing effort may pose. On the other hand, I'm not willing to license my work under yet unknown terms and conditions. I will relicense when GPLv3 is out, if and only if I like it and consider it a license suitable for releasing Free Software.

I am following the GPLv3 drafting process and I commented the first public draft: I'm currently not happy with the directions the FSF is taking. I'll see if the final text of GPLv3 is got right...

I'm sorry for any hassle caused by my single-lincesing choice, but it's the price to pay when you cannot be sure that future versions of the license will be better than the current one...

Regards,

Francesco Poli <frx>
Wed 15 Mar 2006 06:11:33 AM UTC, comment #3:

Hello, sorry for the huge delay, and big thanks for the attached source code...

Licensing under the "GNU GPL v2 only" is problematic.
Would you agree to license your project under the "GNU GPL v2 or later"?

The reason for this is that when we publish GPL v3,
it will be important for all GPL-covered programs to advance to GPL v3.
If you don't put this in the files now, the only way to port your program to GPL v3 would be to ask each
and every copyright holder, and that may be very difficult.

We can explain the issue in more detail if you wish.
If you have concerns about "GNU GPL v2 or later", we'd be happy to address them too.

Regards,

Sebastian Wieseler <kickino>
Project MemberIn charge of this item.
Wed 01 Mar 2006 09:29:24 PM UTC, comment #2:

Sebastian,
have you received my e-mail reply (dated Wed, 8 Feb 2006 20:14:21 +0100)?
In case you haven't, I'm trying to attach the preliminary version of markonvert to this tracker item...

I hope I don't mess things up!

Regards,

--
Francesco Poli

Francesco Poli <frx>
Wed 08 Feb 2006 10:37:07 AM UTC, comment #1:

Hi,
I'm evaluating the project you submitted for approval in Savannah.

Please include a (perhaps temporary) URL pointing to the source code or attach it to this tracker item.
The description you gave when registering will not be read by the general public.
If you are still concerned with privacy, however, you can forward the code to me by email.

We wish to review your source code, even if it is not functional, to catch potential legal issues early.

For example, to release your program properly under the GPL you must include a copyright notice and
permission-to-copy statements at the beginning of every file of source code. This is explained in
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html. Our review would help catch potential omissions such as these.

Regards,

Sebastian Wieseler <kickino>
Project MemberIn charge of this item.
Tue 24 Jan 2006 12:23:56 AM UTC, original submission:

A new project has been registered at Savannah
The project account will remain inactive until a site admin approve or discard the registration.

######### REGISTRATION ADMINISTRATION #########

While this item will be useful to track the registration process, approving or discarding the registration must be done using the specific "Group Administration" page, accessible only to site administrators, effectively logged as site administrators (superuser):

<https://savannah.gnu.org/admin/groupedit.php?group_id=8308>

######### REGISTRATION DETAILS #########

Full Name:
----------
markonvert

System Group Name:
-----------------
markonvert

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

License:
--------
Other

Other License:
--------------
GNU General Public License V2 only

Description:
------------
markonvert

A little program (written in C++) to convert between different
Fortran unformatted record markers.
It is aimed at converting between 32 bit and 64 bit record markers
(both ways).

It can work as a temporary workaround for interoperability issues
between g77 (<= 3.3) and g77 (>= 3.4) or gfortran
(see http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19303).

Other Software Required:
------------------------
No special dependencies so far, apart from a C++ compiler
(tested with g++ v3.3.5 and v4.0.2) and a C++ standard
library implementation.

Other Comments:
---------------
I have a preliminary version that seems to work on little endian
machines (with little endian Fortran unformatted files).
I do not have a website where I can publish it.
I can send the source gzipped tar archive via e-mail, though, if you
provide a suitable e-mail address...

Francesco Poli <frx>

 

(Note: upload size limit is set to 16384 kB, after insertion of the required escape characters.)

Attach File(s):
   
   
Comment:
   

Attached Files
file #3796:  markonvert-0.4.tar.gz added by frx (93kB - application/gzip - Preliminary version)

 

Depends on the following items: None found

Items that depend on this one: None found

 

CC list is empty

 

Do you think this task is very important?
If so, you can click here to add your encouragement to it.
This task has 0 encouragements so far.

Only logged-in users can vote.

 

Please enter the title of George Orwell's famous dystopian book (it's a date):

 

 

Follow 6 latest changes.

Date Changed By Updated Field Previous Value => Replaced By
Tue 21 Mar 2006 10:43:18 PM UTCkickinoStatusIn Progress=>Cancelled
  Open/ClosedOpen=>Closed
Wed 15 Mar 2006 06:11:33 AM UTCkickinoStatusWait reply=>In Progress
Wed 01 Mar 2006 09:29:24 PM UTCfrxAttached File-=>Added markonvert-0.4.tar.gz, #439
Wed 08 Feb 2006 10:37:07 AM UTCkickinoStatusNone=>Wait reply
  Assigned toNone=>kickino

Back to the top


Powered by Savane 3.1-cleanup