GSM 05.03 code re-licensing

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.org
Sun Sep 11 04:08:46 UTC 2016


To add some more context for those not following the discussion on
gerrit:

There are other projects like OsmocomBB or gprsdecode which would
benefit from using one shared implementation of all the related gsm
05.03 code.  It would be great if we could eliminate various (partially
incomplete) implementations of the same functionality and move that into
a shared library.

The idea so far was to move it into libosmocore.git, but that (as Vadim
points out) is not possible unless we'd want to force every
application to be AGPLv3-or-later.  So far our policy has been that
libosmocore.git code (libosmogsm/libosmocore/libosmovty) is
GPLv2-or-later.

If we cannot reach agreement on this question, it might be worth
considering a new AGPLv3+ library for the code, independent of
libosmogsm.  So "normal" libosmocore-using applications can be
GPLv2-or-later, while only those specifically needing the gsm0503 code
would have to link in this new AGPLv3+ library.  I'm not sure if it
would be that bad.

Some general backgorund on the original motivations on the use of GPL
vs. AGPL in the Osmocom GSM related projects:

>From my point of view, AGPL makes sense in contexts where the code is
likely used by a mobile operator.  We want to prevent such an operator
from heavily improving our code without having to release the results
back to the community.  As a GSM operator does not distribute (in a
copyright sense) the actual (e.g. BTS/BSC) code, GPL wouldn't be strong
enough here.

For projects like OsmocomBB or gprsdecode, the normal use case is to be
used by an end-user.  So if anybody was to put a modified version into
production, it would involve the distribution of the related software to
the end-user (e.g. in a phone firmware), and that would be distribution
in terms of copyright => GPL is sufficient.

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)



More information about the OpenBSC mailing list