Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+
Carlos Soriano via desktop-devel-list <[email protected]> Thu, 18 May 2017 12:22:01 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnome.desktop,gmane.comp.gnome.nautilus |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <FyJmEzOkKBj4IJrkPq4tTVrt8tiG1EFYbt_pvrqqlih6s3xw7iaCupICjV5PbVtVIGPGdtv_lCrLDhD0K-4T1mzIKOVbiVlDgzz074r2jQw=@protonmail.com> |
Hello, After asking some authors of the current code that we have as GPL3+ inside nautilus, and pondering for a while, I realized the practicity of moving away from that code or convince those authors to relicense as GPL2+ is more a burden than the real benefit. The only problem that arises if Nautilus becomes GPL3+ as per yesteday discussion in IRC at #gnome-hackers is that extensions that are GPL2-only cannot be used anymore. Keep in mind GPL2+ are fine. Said this, I took a look at extensions which are not retired from distros and that have seen a release in at least the last 3 years. So far they are: nautilus-dropbox - GPL3+ nautilus-image-converter - GPL2+ nautilus-pastebin - GPL2+ nautilus-python - GPL2+ nautilus-search-tool - GPL2+ nautilus-sendto - GPL2+ nautilus-terminal - GPL2+ Which is completely fine. Now, there is an issue with Totem plugin for Nautilus which adds a custom page to the properties page, since Totem is GPL2+ with a special clause for propietary gstreamer plugins. However, that was already an unnoticed issue. I don't want to get much deeper into all of this, given that being unnoticed for so long time probably means in practicity it doesn't matter much. We will work on a workaround for this though, making this feature available through DBUS where this doesn't apply. Given this, we will continue to our plan to relicense Nautilus project to GPL3+ next week if nothing serious gets noticed. Best regards, Carlos Soriano -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Relicensing Nautilus to GPLv3+ Local Time: May 17, 2017 6:49 PM UTC Time: May 17, 2017 4:49 PM From: [email protected] To: Frederic Crozat <[email protected]>, [email protected] [email protected], [email protected] Le mercredi 17 mai 2017 à 14:55 +0000, Frederic Crozat a écrit : > Le mer. 17 mai 2017 à 16:02, Ernestas Kulik <[email protected]> a > écrit : > > (Attempt no. 2, since Geary hates me) > > > > Hi, > > > > As the current licensing situation in Nautilus is quite > > complicated, I > > and Carlos are planning a move to relicense the entire codebase to > > GPLv3+. > > > > The codebase has files under several licenses: LGPLv2+, GPLv2+ and > > GPLv3+, the latter implicitly making the project be licensed under > > its > > terms, so our options are quite limited here. > > > > The situation wrt extensions is also not entirely clear, as the > > extension library is LGPLv2+ with Nautilus being GPLv2+, which in > > turn > > disallows loading non-free extensions. Given the fact that it is > > not > > meant to be a generic mechanism for loading extensions, I feel like > > relicensing it without much consideration is reasonable. > > I know at least one proprietary extension for Nautilus (integration > with Synology NAS product) and I'm not sure we should prevent > proprietary extensions to be used for Nautilus. You can just mimic Totem exception clause. This is used to allow proprietary GStreamer plugins. https://git.gnome.org/browse/totem/tree/COPYING#n345 regards, Nicolas_______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list