A couple of remarks.

1. The link to CC-LGPL at http://lib.povray.org/contributeobject/ now 
redirects to the GNU page for GNU Lesser General Public License, version 
2.1. Do we want to update the link?

2. Is there a reason we use LGPL version 2.1 instead of 3? Does the 
object collection predate version 3? Do we want to switch to version 3?


Mike

Post a reply to this message

Le 06/08/2018 à 09:25, Mike Horvath a écrit :
> A couple of remarks.
> 
> 1. The link to CC-LGPL at http://lib.povray.org/contributeobject/ now
> redirects to the GNU page for GNU Lesser General Public License, version
> 2.1. Do we want to update the link?
> 

To what ? the LGPL v3.0 ?

As far as I know, the link is correct.

> 2. Is there a reason we use LGPL version 2.1 instead of 3? Does the
> object collection predate version 3? Do we want to switch to version 3?

Oh yes, it predates LGPL v3.0 (29 June 2007)
LGPL v2.1 is from August 2005
and the site was designed at least before the 22 December 2006, even if
there is trace of getting documented in late September 2007.
(2006 is the date of the CC-LGPL logo for this site)

I have found pictures as old as 14 Aug 2005 (in staircase by chrisb 2.0)

The real life of the website seems to be the 28 September 2007.

Whatever, it would need the direct action of Chris Bartlett to change
the license, as my power does not extend to changing the impacted files.
(the license is in the README.html within the created zip file, that one
I can change, but for the website it is in another page(s) to which I
have no writing access)

Whatever, is there really a difference between 2.1 and 3.0 (excepted
that 3.0 is adding exception to GPL 3.0, whereas LGPL 2.1 is setting the
rights alone) ?


> 
> 
> Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 8/6/2018 12:08 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> As far as I know, the link is correct.
> 

The link is to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/LGPL/2.1/
which gets redirected to https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html

We could update the link to avoid the redirect.

I think "CC-LGPL" is no longer a thing. It should just be "LGPL".



>> 2. Is there a reason we use LGPL version 2.1 instead of 3? Does the
>> object collection predate version 3? Do we want to switch to version 3?
> 
> Oh yes, it predates LGPL v3.0 (29 June 2007)
> LGPL v2.1 is from August 2005
> and the site was designed at least before the 22 December 2006, even if
> there is trace of getting documented in late September 2007.
> (2006 is the date of the CC-LGPL logo for this site)
> 
> I have found pictures as old as 14 Aug 2005 (in staircase by chrisb 2.0)
> 
> The real life of the website seems to be the 28 September 2007.
> 

Interesting.

> Whatever, it would need the direct action of Chris Bartlett to change
> the license, as my power does not extend to changing the impacted files.
> (the license is in the README.html within the created zip file, that one
> I can change, but for the website it is in another page(s) to which I
> have no writing access)
> 
> Whatever, is there really a difference between 2.1 and 3.0 (excepted
> that 3.0 is adding exception to GPL 3.0, whereas LGPL 2.1 is setting the
> rights alone) ?
> 

Dunno. Just asking.


Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 2018-08-06 12:08 PM (-4), Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 06/08/2018 à 09:25, Mike Horvath a écrit :
>
>> 2. Is there a reason we use LGPL version 2.1 instead of 3? Does the
>> object collection predate version 3? Do we want to switch to version 3?
>
> Oh yes, it predates LGPL v3.0 (29 June 2007)
> LGPL v2.1 is from August 2005
> and the site was designed at least before the 22 December 2006, even if
> there is trace of getting documented in late September 2007.
> (2006 is the date of the CC-LGPL logo for this site)
>
> I have found pictures as old as 14 Aug 2005 (in staircase by chrisb 2.0)
>
> The real life of the website seems to be the 28 September 2007.

There are 7 modules with this date stamp (all by chrisb), and none earlier.

StairCase was uploaded 2008 March 26.  Looking at my hard disk, it seems 
that there are some files in these early modules that are stamped 
earlier than the upload date.  This does not happen nowadays; they all 
have the upload time as the OS date stamp.  (And for me, for some 
reason, my time zone is disregarded; so if I upload a module at 9 p.m., 
the downloaded files are stamped with 1 a.m. the next day!)

The cc-LGPL-a.png file is stamped 2006 December 22.

(Note that I am referring to the OS date stamp in all cases, which may 
be later than the date recorded in the image metadata.)

> Whatever, it would need the direct action of Chris Bartlett to change
> the license, as my power does not extend to changing the impacted files.
> (the license is in the README.html within the created zip file, that one
> I can change, but for the website it is in another page(s) to which I
> have no writing access)

Unfortunately, Chris has not been heard from since ca. late 2009.  Which 
is a problem if he is the only one on the planet who can modify the 
administrative files.  Last I heard, Chris Cason was trying to contact 
him, but that was many, many years ago.

> Whatever, is there really a difference between 2.1 and 3.0 (excepted
> that 3.0 is adding exception to GPL 3.0, whereas LGPL 2.1 is setting the
> rights alone) ?

I recall reading that LGPL 3.0, or perhaps 3.0, was created to close a 
loophole in 2.1/2.0.  Some powerful corporation exploited the loophole 
(such entities are not known for observing the spirit of a law or 
contract), and the non-profit and/or little guy who created the software 
got royally screwed.

I do not recall the details of the case, but I would love to upgrade to 
LGPL 3.0 if it can be done.

Post a reply to this message

On 2018-08-06 01:50 PM (-4), Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 8/6/2018 12:08 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> As far as I know, the link is correct.
>>
>
> The link is to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/LGPL/2.1/
> which gets redirected to https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-2.1.html
>
> We could update the link to avoid the redirect.
>
> I think "CC-LGPL" is no longer a thing. It should just be "LGPL".

It seems to me that GNU was just piggybacking on Creative Commons for 
this.  I don't think it makes any difference.  However, note that the 
logo file has a "CC" on it, so we would have to obtain a new graphic for 
the server.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/10/2018 7:58 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>> Whatever, it would need the direct action of Chris Bartlett to change
>> the license, as my power does not extend to changing the impacted files.
>> (the license is in the README.html within the created zip file, that one
>> I can change, but for the website it is in another page(s) to which I
>> have no writing access)
> 
> Unfortunately, Chris has not been heard from since ca. late 2009.  Which 
> is a problem if he is the only one on the planet who can modify the 
> administrative files.  Last I heard, Chris Cason was trying to contact 
> him, but that was many, many years ago.
> 

Who is in charge of the web-based newsgroup interface? That thing is 
almost impossible to read on my phone.

And my smartphone newsgroup app does not support binary groups/messages.


Mike

Post a reply to this message