EPrints Technical Mailing List Archive

Message: #06766

< Previous (by date) | Next (by date) > | < Previous (in thread) | Next (in thread) > | Messages - Most Recent First | Threads - Most Recent First

Re: [EP-tech] Licence information in Bazaar / plugin files

Hi Tomasz, Alan,

Thanks for the input.

I don't think I'll be asserting any additional copyright - but I wasn't sure whether releasing a file with the existing statements embedded in it made any sense at all!


The updated file in 3.3, and the corresponding file in theBazaar version will retain the existing statements.

The Bazaar codebase will be in GitHub, and that will have a licence defined there.






From: eprints-tech-bounces@ecs.soton.ac.uk [mailto:eprints-tech-bounces@ecs.soton.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Tomasz Neugebauer
Sent: 10 August 2017 19:06
To: eprints-tech@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [EP-tech] Licence information in Bazaar / plugin files


I just realized that the two licenses (British Library) and EPrints one are not the same, so I see that it is already a little complex J

GPL is compatible with LGPL v3, but with some comments:



GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL) version 3 (#LGPL) (#LGPLv3)

This is the latest version of the LGPL: a free software license, but not a strong copyleft license, because it permits linking with nonfree modules. It is compatible with GPLv3. We recommend it for special circumstances only.

Please note that LGPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2 by itself. However, most software released under GPLv2 allows you to use the terms of later versions of the GPL as well. When this is the case, you can use the code under GPLv3 to make the desired combination. To learn more about compatibility between GNU licenses, please see our FAQ.




From: Tomasz Neugebauer
Sent: August-10-17 1:56 PM
To: 'eprints-tech@ecs.soton.ac.uk' <eprints-tech@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Licence information in Bazaar / plugin files


Hi John,


Thanks for the interesting question.   This is not legal advice, and I’m not a lawyer, but I do write software, so I’ve had to read up on the topic of software licenses. 

One of the objectives of open source is to keep the licensing as simple as possible, this is why new custom licenses with additional clauses are not open source.

In this case, the license is remaining the same, it is the GNU General Public License, so all is well.

When releasing new versions, you have the responsibility to leave any of the copyright statements intact.

It seems to me that for any additions and changes that you make to the code (i.e., introducing new version/modifications/etc to it), you can add your own name, with your own choice of license.  However, if you choose any license other than GPL for your additions/modifications, then that becomes problematic.





From: eprints-tech-bounces@ecs.soton.ac.uk [mailto:eprints-tech-bounces@ecs.soton.ac.uk] On Behalf Of John Salter
Sent: August-10-17 8:03 AM
To: 'eprints-tech@ecs.soton.ac.uk' <eprints-tech@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Subject: [EP-tech] Licence information in Bazaar / plugin files



Bit of a non-techie question - but one that is in our domain.


I'm making some updates to the UKETD_DC (UK eTheses and Dissertations) export plugin:



The changes will be issued as a Pull Request on the 3.3 branch, and I will also be making them into a Bazaar package.


The file already contains some copyright information from the British Library (who were involved with creating the initial export format):


-in summary:

    Copyright (C) British Library Board, St. Pancras, UK

    GNU General Public License v2 (or later)


At the end of the file (https://github.com/eprints/eprints/blob/3.3/perl_lib/EPrints/Plugin/Export/OAI_UKETD_DC.pm#L369-L394)

it also has the 'standard' EPrints statements:

    Copyright 2000-2011 University of Southampton.

    GNU Lesser General Public License - v3 or later.


I was going to leave all these statements in as-is, and not add any of my own - but ten I wondered if this was actually a 'correct' thing to do - or whether I should be adding any additional information?


Obviously it'll still be GNU Lesser General Public License v3 or later, but what about the two copyright statements? Do they already conflict?

Any thoughts?