File LICENSE.README of Package dirmngr.3240

Overview Repositories Revisions Requests Users Attributes Meta

File LICENSE.README of Package dirmngr.3240

-----------
EFFECTIVE NOV 2010, LICENSE IS BEING CHANGED TO GPLv3+ (upstream most probably
won't release any new tarball since the development of standalone dirmngr has
been stopped (integrated into GnuPG))
-----------

Patch dirmngr-GPLv3.patch changes license from GPLv2 to GPLv3 (or later)
has been taken from dirmngr SVN, commit #345:

$ svn log --limit 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r345 | wk | 2010-11-16 10:24:21 +0100 (Tue, 16 Nov 2010) | 2 lines

Switch license to GPLv3+.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion thread from the gnupg-devel mailing list:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:27:43 +0100
From: Petr Uzel <petr.uzel@suse.cz>
To: gnupg-devel@gnupg.org
Cc: Ciaran Farrell <cfarrell@novell.com>
Subject: dirmngr: GPLv2+, some files GPLv3+

Novell legal team found some inconsistencies in dirmngr licensing:
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652989

Quoting the report:
=========================
The license of dirmngr claims to be GPLv2+. In the package the files
dirmngr-1.0.2.tar.bz2/dirmngr-1.0.2/doc/yat2m.c
dirmngr-1.0.2.tar.bz2/dirmngr-1.0.2/src/b64dec.c were found which are licensed
under the GPLv3+. In the case of doc/yat2m.c it looks as though the GPLv3
applies only to a standalone utility for converting text documents from one
form into another and so probably don't have an effect on the rest of the
package. However, the file src/b64dec.c may cause the entire resulting binary
to be licensed under the GPLv3.

Could you please comment on whether this is an intentional inclusion of GPLv3
by upstream? If so, we would need to look at the nature of interaction of the
GPLv3 file with the rest of the package. In any event, the presence of the
GPLv3 file should be clearly noted in the spec file (License: GPLv2+;GPLv3+)
and a copy of the GPLv3 should be included with the source (this should be done
anyway because of the standalone doc tool).
=========================

As far as I understand, the src/b64dec.c was imported from GnuPG, which is
GPLv3.

Shouldn't dirmngr license be switched to GPLv3 ?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:51:48 +0100
From: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
To: gnupg-devel@gnupg.org
Cc: Ciaran Farrell <cfarrell@novell.com>
Subject: Re: dirmngr: GPLv2+, some files GPLv3+

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:27, petr.uzel@suse.cz said:

> The license of dirmngr claims to be GPLv2+. In the package the files
> dirmngr-1.0.2.tar.bz2/dirmngr-1.0.2/doc/yat2m.c
> dirmngr-1.0.2.tar.bz2/dirmngr-1.0.2/src/b64dec.c were found which are licensed
> under the GPLv3+. In the case of doc/yat2m.c it looks as though the GPLv3

Well, that is possible.  I see what I can do about it.

> As far as I understand, the src/b64dec.c was imported from GnuPG, which is
> GPLv3.
>
> Shouldn't dirmngr license be switched to GPLv3 ?

Dirmngr development has stopped because dirmngr is now a part of GnuPG
proper.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 14:37:30 +0100
From: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
To: gnupg-devel@gnupg.org
Cc: Ciaran Farrell <cfarrell@novell.com>
Subject: Re: dirmngr: GPLv2+, some files GPLv3+

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 20:51, wk@gnupg.org said:

>> under the GPLv3+. In the case of doc/yat2m.c it looks as though the GPLv3
>
> Well, that is possible.  I see what I can do about it.

I changed the doc files and the output of --version to make clear that
it is under GPLv3+.  Done in the repo only because I don't think that we
will do another release.  Distributions may pick up these changes

Places

File LICENSE.README of Package dirmngr.3240

Places