[liblouis-liblouisxml] Re: GNU license and MBraille

  • From: Harri Pasanen <harri@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 17:40:50 +0100

Some VLC (a popular open source videoplayer) forums had a discussion that Apple AppStore is fine with LGPL 2.1, and that is what VLC is using.
Personally, I'd advocate going with LGPL 2.1 and dropping those contributions where an OK for LGPL 2.1 could not be found. You can do that already, while waiting for a lawyer to manifest... 

Just my 2 cents,

Harri

On 16/01/2015 17:15, John Gardner wrote:
Simon, I do not know how many companies are avoiding liblouis, but one is Amazon. They are the prime pushers to get the license change. They want to bundle liblouis but their lawyers will not allow them to do it until the license is changed. 

John G
*From:*liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Simon Aittamaa 
*Sent:* Thursday, January 15, 2015 11:51 PM
*To:* liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [liblouis-liblouisxml] Re: GNU license and MBraille
While I personally think this would be a sane approach, I would definitely advice you to check this with a lawyer. Last time a license change was up for discussion for the Linux kernel, I think the consensus was that it would be impossible to change the license of Linux, since it would be impossible to get consent from each and every contributor. Then again, there are a lot of non-lawyers on LKML...
Just out of curiosity, do we know how many have decided not to use liblouis due to the license? And how many of these are due to "concerns" regarding the license and how many are due to actual problems, e.g. restrictions in place by distributors such as AppStore and Windows Store? 

Best,

Simon
On 15 January 2015 at 18:18, Keith Creasy <kcreasy@xxxxxxx <mailto:kcreasy@xxxxxxx>> wrote: 

John.
Perhaps it would be better to post that we plan to make the change and then allow a period of time for anyone to respond. If no one objects we then take that as agreement. Probably should post it on this list and on the web site. Many things are handled that way so that if, later on down the road, someone complains or sues someone we can show that we made reasonable efforts to inform and get a response. 90 days should be sufficient for anyone who objects to respond. We also have to provide instructions for submitting a response or objection so there's no confusion. Anyone who responds should also be prepared to identify the portion of the LibLouis project they believe they hold rights to.
I'm not an attorney but can't imagine that this wouldn't work. Many things with much more serious consequences are handled in this manner. 



-----Original Message-----
From: liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of John Gardner 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 12:08 PM
To: liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Subject: [liblouis-liblouisxml] Re: GNU license and MBraille
Hello all, it would be a great help for anybody willing to volunteer a bit of time to help us complete polling the list for permission to change the license to LGPL2.1. Several months ago I wrote to all the people for whom I had contact information asking for permission for such a change.
Christian has dug out a few more addresses but many contributors are just names on the list. It would be really good for everybody on this list to review those names and * if you are on that list, please respond with your agreement to change the license, * if you know anybody whose address is not given, contact them for permission or send the contact information to Christian or me.
All major contributors have agreed to the change. If there are any remaining contributors who object to the change, we will remove their contributions from liblouis so we can move ahead. We have discussed this issue thoroughly, and there seems to be no good reason to object to the change, so I am optimistic that we will not need to do any removals. 

Thanks!

John Gardner


-----Original Message-----
From: liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of Christian Egli 
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 8:03 AM
To: liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Subject: [liblouis-liblouisxml] Re: GNU license and MBraille


On 01/13/2015 11:25 PM, Mesar Hameed wrote:
> In any case, Bert and Christian made a list of those that have
> contributed and need to give their consent.
Well Bert made the list really and John contacted most of the people on the list. 

> Lets wait for an update from Christian (last person worked on this) to
> let us know how far through we have gone, and how many people still need to be tracked down. 
Well, the whole process is tracked in
https://github.com/liblouis/liblouis/issues/26. Currently we have consent from 57 out of 109 contributors. Someone should try to make an effort to contact the remaining people (again, this time only asking for a move to LGPL2.1 though). I'd be happy to help. 

Thanks
Christian
For a description of the software, to download it and links to project pages go to http://www.abilitiessoft.com z + b z pj 0 Z v+Z b K- - 
-  m       X   ,  \

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. liblouis-liblouisxml
  3. Archive
  4. 01-2015