Hi.
In my opinion, we should all relicense under GPL v3 and do not bother!
First, the GPL v2 and the GPL v3 is sufficiently compatible. See "Clarifying
License Compatibility" the link
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html
Secondly, it can be considered as a case of fair use. See the link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
The Liblouis is too quiet and a good project in order to someone began to
challenge fair use.
We should remove the contributions only for the explicit protest of the
author, and not by default.
Sincerely, Nikita.
-----Original message-----
From: John J. Boyer
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 4:30 PM
To: liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [liblouis-liblouisxml] Re: Proposal for aliblouis organization.
(was: Licensing of liblouis tables )
Hi Don,
We certainly need a lawyer to look into the licensing matter. I hope
we'll be hearing much more from you.
John
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 05:20:18AM -0600, Donald Winiecki wrote:
At this point I am not much known to the group, but look forward to the
prospect of earning a place in time.
FWIW, I too would be in favor of an *ad lib* organization and would nod if
asked to participate.
I am not a lawyer, but as a sociologist who often works with engineers and
scientists, I have done some research involving engineering, science and
the law, and I belong to a relevant special interest group (SIG) within the
American Sociological Assn (ASA). I can check with fellow SIG members for
lawyers who might consider this as a *pro bono* service.
Best,
_don
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:37 AM, tolga karatas <tolga.karatas2014@xxxxxxxxx
> wrote:
> all;
>
> an lib Louis organisation would be good; but precautions need to be
> taken; in the sence that a professional lawyer needs to be consulted;
> for the organisation;
>
> I'm in favour for an organisation to be set up for Lib Louis;
>
> Regards;
>
> Tolga;
>
> On 22/06/2016, Michael Whapples <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > John I would suggest if taking your route, that future contributions
> > then are given with full rights to the organisation then this could > > not
> > come up in the future as the organisation would have the rights to
> > change the license.
> >
> >
> > However there are words of caution attached to this.
> >
> > 1. The organisation needs to behave in a way that the community agrees
> > with. This would be to stick to certain principles when relicensing, > > etc.
> > 2. Contributors need to be happy to grant these rights. You may find
> > that some decide not to contribute instead of granting those rights. > > The
> > behaviour of the organisation may influence this, but some may just > > not
> > be happy with granting full rights to an organisation.
> >
> > This probably would not change much for existing contributions, I > > think
> > you really would need to get the permission of the contributors.
> >
> > From what I understand, permission to change the library source code
> > back to LGPL2.1 has been recieved and it is only the tables which > > still
> > have LGPL3 contributions. As tables are easy to remove, the removal
> > option is much more practical.
> >
> > Personally I would go down the route of removing any LGPL3 tables (or > > at
> > least any you cannot get explicit permission to change back to > > LGPL2.1),
> > and this is regardless of setting up a organisation for the projects > > in
> > the future. You might decide to distribute these LGPL3 tables in a
> > separate optional package people could download, then those who do not
> > want LGPL3 stuff ignore that optional package and those who want it > > can
> > download it.
> >
> > I am no legal expert and so I might be taking a cautious approach. I > > am
> > just uncertain that a no response can be assumed to be that the person
> > was uncontactable, additional rights need to be granted, but to not
> > grant them requires no action as it is no change.
> >
> > Michael Whapples
> >
> > On 21/06/2016 23:27, John Gardner wrote:
> >> Jamie, there is plenty of case law permitting actions by > >> organizations
> who
> >> have not heard from all stakeholders provided they have made a good
> faith
> >> effort to reach them.
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James
> Teh
> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 2:29 PM
> >> To: liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: [liblouis-liblouisxml] Re: Proposal for aliblouis > >> organization.
> >> (was: Licensing of liblouis tables )
> >>
> >> Two points of clarification:
> >> 1. There is definitely a difference between GPL 3 and LGPL 3, but > >> that's
> >> academic here and thus not worth discussing.
> >> 2. Even if an organisation existed, you cannot relicense anything > >> where
> >> the contributor has not agreed. Majority is not relevant. This will
> always
> >> be the case unless all contributors sign an agreement which licenses
> their
> >> code under specific conditions to said organisation. Again, if you > >> can't
> >> get agreement from someone, your only option is to remove the
> >> contribution. This is not anything complex; it is simple legal > >> rights.
> >>
> >> Sent from a mobile device
> >>
> >>> On 22 Jun 2016, at 1:30 AM, John Gardner <john.gardner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Larry, historically, John Boyer borrowed from BRLTTY to get liblouis
> >>> started, and we got their permission to change their GPL license to
> LGPL,
> >>> so that liblouis could be used with any software, not just GPL
> software.
> >>> A few years later the LGPL license upgraded from version 2.1 to > >>> version
> >>> 3. None of us realized that LGPL3 had become a great deal more
> >>> restrictive than the last LGPL2 version. I have read LGPL3 and to my
> >>> non-legal mind, I cannot tell any difference now between GPL and > >>> LGPL.
> >>> Amazon wants to use liblouis but is not willing to use GPL or LGPL3
> >>> software for good reason. So Christian and I were convinced to
> re-license
> >>> anything with LGPL3 license to LGPL2.1. We posted requests on the > >>> list
> >>> and contacted every contributor whose address we had. To this point
> >>> everyone who responded has agreed to have his/her contributions
> >>> relicensed to LGPL2.1, but we have been unable to contact every > >>> person
> >>> listed as a contributor, apparently including authors of some tables
> >>> licensed as LGPL3. They remain in the archive as LGPL3 There really > >>> is
> no
> >>> liblouis organization that can make the decision to relicense > >>> software
> >>> whose authors are not reachable.
> >>>
> >>> It is probably time for liblouis to organize itself into some
> >>> legally-defined organization so that such decisions can be made > >>> instead
> >>> of relying on Christian and a few other long-time contributors to > >>> put
> >>> their necks on the line. The major copyright holders are ViewPlus, > >>> John
> >>> Boyer's company, and APH. ViewPlus and John Boyer are the founders, > >>> and
> >>> APH was accepted later as co-owner when it took major development
> >>> responsibility for BrailleBlaster and liblouisUTDML. In absence of
> other
> >>> guidance, I propose that these three organizations take > >>> responsibility
> of
> >>> drawing up a charter proposal with input from other major > >>> contributors.
> >>> Then put it to a vote of currently active liblouis participants. In > >>> my
> >>> opinion, the organization should have a relatively small > >>> international
> >>> executive board selected from current major contributors and a > >>> process
> >>> for updating that board from time to time. Any proposal should win
> >>> support of a strong majority - we sure wouldn't want to start off > >>> with
> >>> some serious unhappiness in this excellent group of people. I > >>> believe
> >>> that Amazon will be willing to contribute to startup expenses. Would
> APH
> >>> be willing to accept contributions for this project until the
> >>> organization is able to accept its own funding? As a large > >>> non-profit,
> >>> APH is the obvious choice for this role.
> >>>
> >>> If anybody on the list has better ideas for forming a liblouis
> >>> organization, please post them!
> >>>
> >>> John Gardner
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> [mailto:liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > >>> Larry
> >>> Skutchan
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 3:10 AM
> >>> To: liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> Subject: [liblouis-liblouisxml] Re: Licensing of liblouis tables > >>> (was:
> >>> Move the library to LGPLv2.1)
> >>>
> >>> It is a shame someone even has to ask this question. The whole > >>> intent
> of
> >>> Liblouis is to help make quality braille available on all devices. > >>> Why
> >>> should someone who wants to use it have to jump through hoops?
> >>> This licensing question is tricky and annoying and results in > >>> hindering
> >>> the mission.
> >>> What are our options for smoothing this process?
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> [mailto:liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> >>> Christian Egli
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:59 AM
> >>> To: Mulcahy, Marc <mmulcahy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Cc: John Gardner <john.gardner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Bangs, Jon
> >>> <jbang@xxxxxxxxxx>; Korn, Peter <pkorn@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> >>> liblouis-liblouisxml <liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Subject: [liblouis-liblouisxml] Licensing of liblouis tables (was:
> >>> Move the library to LGPLv2.1)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Mulcahy, Marc" <mmulcahy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>>>> "John Gardner" <john.gardner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>>>> If I understand Christian's post, liblouis is now licensed as
> >>>>> LGPL2.1 except for some of the tables.
> >>>> How can we tell which tables are licensed under LGPL V2 Vs. LGPL > >>>> V3?
> >>>> We'll need additional languages eventually, but UEB would probably > >>>> be
> >>>> enough to get us going.
> >>> Well, currently only the source code of liblouis has been changed to
> >>> LGPLv2.1. The tables are all still LGPLv3. Two remarks with respect > >>> to
> >>> that:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Somebody needs to go through all the tables, look at the > >>> copyright
> >>> statement and the revision history and compare this with the list > >>> of
> >>> contributors that have agreed to re-licensing. Pick the tables > >>> where
> >>> we have permission to change the license. Send me this list and I
> >>> will change the licenses. If you do this before the summer > >>> holidays
> >>> there is a chance that this will go in the 3.0 release. Contact > >>> me
> if
> >>> you need help with that.
> >>>
> >>> 2. I'm not a layer but as far as I know the LGPL is about linking.
> Since
> >>> the tables are not linked to your program you might be OK. On the
> >>> other hand this might be slippery terrain.
> >>>
> >>> Hope that helps
> >>> Christian
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Christian Egli
> >>> Swiss Library for the Blind, Visually Impaired and Print Disabled
> >>> Grubenstrasse 12, CH-8045 Zürich, Switzerland
> >>>
> >>> -----
> >>> Tag der offenen Tuer: Es war einmal...
> >>> Die SBS laedt Sie herzlich ein: 25. Juni 2016 von 9 bis 16 Uhr.
> >>> Mehr Informationen erhalten Sie unter www.sbs.ch/offenetuer For a
> >>> description of the software, to download it and links to project > >>> pages
> go
> >>> to http://liblouis.org z + b z pj 0 Z v+Z b K- -
> >>> - m 剹h +(
> >>> ŠÚuë ®*mŠ‰è~Ø^²‡íÁªÞ¶‡hÂyhiØjweŠy,¶Šk¢7œ¶– zÈ(¶ˆm¶Ÿÿ–&å¢è¬¢¸
> >> For a description of the software, to download it and links to > >> project
> >> pages go to http://liblouis.org
> >> ��u� �*m���~�^������h�yhiحjwe�y,��k�7����z�(��m����&��org=
> >
> >
> > For a description of the software, to download it and links to
> > project pages go to http://liblouis.org
> >
> For a description of the software, to download it and links to
> project pages go to http://liblouis.org
>
