This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.
Harald Welte laforge at gnumonks.orgHi Jan,
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:18:28PM +0200, Jan Lübbe wrote:
> > Notwithstanding those open questions, such a network operator would always
> > have the option of simply sending back his changes for integration in the
> > official project - and thus he would no longer use a modified version which
> > then means there is no need for the prominent notice / download at all.
>
> While i agree with Harald's goal of making network operators of public
> networks publish their changes (and that the GPL alone does nothing
> here), I'm not sure using the AGPLv3 for that is straight-forward.
I think it is the most straight-forward way we have, as the AGPLv3 is only
a minor difference to the GPLv3, which is in turn compatible with all our
current GPLv2+ code. Furthermore, using a recognized/common license
means there are more people out there who actually understand it - as
opposed to some custom modifications.
> I don't think the GPL uses "modified version" in the sense of "different
> from mainline", but rather every change to the source code creates a new
> modified version. So publishing the source code or having the changes
> merged to some mainline version does not remove the "modified flag".
"modified version" means any modifications compared to the particular version
that was licensed under GNU GPLv3.
So at the time some code is back in mainline, the respective operator
can (without any explicit action) again obtain a AGPLv3 license on that
latest version (or whatever git commit version is distributed in our
repository) and thus no longer run a modified version.
Modification is anything that an operator does after he has obtained the
copy from us.
> So every developer would be running a modified version and so be
> required to follow Section 13 by informing all users directly.
As I understand it, only until his modifications are back in mainline.
> Instead, we could add an additional permission the the license
> statement, which allows everyone who would need "prominently offer the
> source all users" to *instead* fulfill this requirement by publishing
> the corresponding source on their website. We could also ask (but not
> require) them to notify the mailing list.
Yes, additional permissions are possible under section 7
However, I think we could even offer an additional term that reads like
* you do not have to "prominently offer the source all user", if you
submit the modified version (under the same license) to the OpenBSC project.
This is not a restriction, but an additional permission. Anyone can simply
remove it and fall back to the plain AGPLv3.
I am happy to run this by my lawyers and through the FSF, if we were
to decide on such an additional term.
> > a) Do you think re-licensing to AGPLv3 is a good idea?
>
> As above, i fully agree with your goal. But I'm not convinced yet.
Let's hope I can ;)
> Also, the GPLv3 has changed how it relates to Patents, which may be
> relevant to a lot of GSM work. I can't say i understand what Section 11
> really means for network operators. Their lawyers may decide it's too
> risky and not use OpenBSC/Osmocom.
1) network operators do not normally convey copies. They run the software
on their own systems
2) they have no need to convey copies, _unless_ they did modifications,
based on which they now are required to convey the source to those
modified versions to their users (or alternatively to us, if we put
an additional term/permission in it)
As far as I read it, the patent section only applies to patents that the
'conveyor' (operator in that case) either holds himself or has obtained a
license on.
I don't really have much of a problem with that. If somebody doesn't like
this, he could still see if there is a way how he can negotiate an alternative
license with the copyright holders. The latter is still possible, as the
number of copyright holders is relatively small, and any claimed GSM related
patent infringement would be in code that the openbsc authors wrote, and not in
e.g. the vty code that we imported from zebra.
Regards,
Harald
--
- Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)