Subject: Re: wxEDID for Debian
To: Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com>
From: tomazzi <tomazzi@wp.pl>
Message-ID: <83aafc4e-e86a-e9d4-771e-7359e80db111@wp.pl>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 20:56:49 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US

Hello, Felix

I'm glad to here that wxedid proved to be useful for You, and I'm sorry 
for the late reply - I'm a busy man ;)

Indeed, there's a little mess with the "rcode" project - this is not a 
project in the usual sense, but a set of template files, one bash script 
(rcd_autogen) and one autoconf extension file (rcd_autoconf.m4). In 
other words, the "rcode" project is essentially an extension to the 
build system, and as such it should be possible to use it with any other 
project, which is not necessarily licensed under GPLv3.

I'm not a lawyer, but from my understanding any project can be linked 
with LGPL-ed code, and that's why the rcode files are licensed under 
LGPL. Perhaps I should state this in a more clear way, I'll try to do 
that in next version.

Regarding the GPLv3, yes My intention is to use GPL-3+ (plus), as it is 
expressed in the COPYING file, only the source files are missing the "+"

I'm going to fix it in the next release.

Best regards.


On 01/11/2020 17:35, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Hi Tomasz,
>
> Thank you for your program. I used it to fix a broken EDID in my
> monitor, which I then flashed with other tools. [1] Hoping to help
> others, I then uploaded wxEDID to the Debian archive.
>
> [1] https://wiki.debian.org/RepairEDID
>
> Unfortunately, my upload was rejected because I did not document your
> license carefully.
>
> I already fixed the LGPL license for the files related to 'rcode'
> (although I was unable to find a project with that name anywhere). I
> now struggle with my reviewer's suspicion that you intended to release
> the following files, which make up the bulk of your program, under the
> GPL-3 without the option to choose a later license:
>
>      src/guilog.h:   License:   GPLv3
>      src/EDID_class.cpp: * License:   GPLv3
>      src/EDID_class.h: * License:   GPLv3
>      src/wxEDID_App.h: * License:   GPLv3
>      src/wxEDID_Main.cpp: * License:   GPLv3
>      src/wxEDID_Main.cpp:"License: GPLv3\n\n";
>      src/EDID.h: * License:   GPLv3
>      src/CEA.h: * License:   GPLv3
>      src/CEA_EXT.h: * License:   GPLv3
>      src/wxEDID_Main.h: * License:   GPLv3
>      src/CEA_EXT_class.cpp: * License:   GPLv3
>      src/CEA_class.cpp: * License:   GPLv3
>
> In our corner of the open source universe, people occasionally strike
> the 'or later' clause from a GPL licence (most often from version 2,
> and most famously in the Linux kernel). They then omit the plus sign
> that is customary added after the short identifier, i.e. 'GPL-3+'
> becomes 'GPL-3'.
>
> You are clear about allowing the 'or later' language in your file
> COPYING (and also in src/debug,h), but in other files you merely refer
> to GPLv3. I think that license includes the 'or later' language by
> default.
>
> To help this disagreement with my reviewer, would you please clarify
> your intent? Ideally, you would amend the code so it's clear to
> everyone, including my reviewer. Thanks!
>
> Kind regards
> Felix Lechner
