POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.object-collection : License reassessment and other matters : License reassessment and other matters Server Time
17 Sep 2021 03:40:43 EDT (-0400)
  License reassessment and other matters  
From: Cousin Ricky
Date: 10 May 2021 18:50:32
Message: <6099b8b8$1@news.povray.org>
While we are waiting for the Object Collection website to be restored,
this is probably a good time to discuss the license and management of
the Collection.  These are some concerns and questions I have:

The LGPL has been updated to version 3.0.  Should we switch to that as a
collection?  Should we leave it up to the author of the module?

The one liner required by the old Object Collection upload software does
not include the LGPL version.  This seems potentially problematic.  A
statement to the effect of "2.1 or later" or "3.0 or later" seems
appropriate.  Or should we keep the required one liner as is, and leave
it up to the author of the module to specify an LGPL version on a
separate line of SDL comment?

Can any lawyer among us explain in plain English the differences between
v2.1 and v3.0?

The LGPL 3.0 is essentially an addendum to the GPL 3.0.  If we upgrade
as a collection, how should the README handle the two-part nature of the
license?

Should we change the link to point directly to the GNU website, skipping
Creative Commons altogether?  (If so, we'll need a new icon.  There is
one on the GNU website for the LGPL 3.0, but not for 2.1.)

If we upgrade to LGPL 3.0, is there even a CC wrapper?  The CC website
appears to have orphaned all the pages for its older licenses, and the
GNU wrappers appear to be among those.  (If someone can find a link from
anywhere on their website, please let us know!)

The recommended LGPL notice, aside from being wordier than the one liner
required by the old Object Collection upload software, implies that a
copy of the license itself should accompany the module downloads.
Should we do this?  GNU's instructions are at
  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html

Above all, can someone be granted all the administrative powers that
Chris Bartlett had before he disappeared?  Decisions need to be made,
the license being only one.  Another example is whether my suggestion to
avoid all-lowercase identifiers should be formalized.  The community
thinks it's a good idea, but there seems to be no formal mechanism to
adopt it.

Can there be a method of succession, so the Collection is not again left
without an administrator?

There was also supposed to be a validation process to insure that
modules marked as compliant meet those standards.  So far, only 12
modules have been validated--all written by the previous administrator.
If the administrator himself validated his own modules, then effectively
*none* of the modules have been validated.

If a module is found to be out of compliance for its declared level, how
should the issue be rectified?  This is a likely situation, as
compliance requirements have changed since the Collection was inaugurated.


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2021 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.