[IRCServices Coding] contributing to ircservices : legal and coding standards problems

[Andrew Church]

>> (Look at docs/copyright.html, among other places, and note that I
>> specifically state "version 2" of the GPL, not the "version 2 or any later
>> version" that most people use--I might not be able to include such code in
>> Services due to the difference in licensing terms.)
>
>Actually, you can't include any code from other projects because of this
>: you impose additional restrictions on the code. (see section 6 of the
>GPL)

     I'm well aware of this, and I don't include code from other projects,
but that's mainly because I had no such intentions in the first place.
(Some people call this "Not Invented Here" syndrome; I call it "wanting to
know exactly what the code does".)

>OK, I don't understand why you are acting like this, but I respect this.
>I think the only interesting solution for this issue would be to fork
>ircservices and start a new services package with a bazaar development
>model. But I have a licence problem here : I don't want to use "GPL
>version 2" but "GPL version 2 or later", and I can't, without knowing
>what is in this "later" version of the GPL.

     This is exactly the reason I say "version 2" instead of "version 2 or
later": I don't know what "later" versions will say.  I'm well aware that
the FSF says "the only changes made in later versions will be to clarify
minor issues", but frankly, I don't trust them--or rather, I don't trust
that what they consider "minor issues" will also be "minor" from my point
of view.

     If a new version of the GPL is released, and I feel it appropriate to
use with Services, then of course I'll do so.  But note that even if I said
"2 or later", and a later version made a change I preferred, people would
still be able to use the code under version 2 of the license "at their
option".

>I still have to think about this, but would you agree to release a
>special version of ircservices-5 under "GPL version 2 or later" instead
>of "GPL version 2" ? This way I could fork this version instead of the
>restricted one.

     No, I won't do that; however, I would be willing to let you distribute
your own version under a "version 2 or later" license.

>Furthermore, I think the Affero GPL would be more appropriate for
>an irc services package. (see http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html for the
>licence itself, and
>http://webservices.devchannel.org/webservices/02/05/21/2245226.shtml?tid=1
>for an article explaining the changes).

     Thanks for the link--I'll look into it.  (But not today--I'm going
out of town shortly for the next few days.)

  --Andrew Church
    achurch at achurch.org
    http://achurch.org/