Licensing

Ethersex Relicensing Effort

Why does it matter?

Ethersex is licensed unter GPLv3, but a few parts are currently licensed as GPLv2 only or any other incompatible licesne. However, we still need to validate with the individual copyright holders that a relicense to GPLv2+ or GPLv2+v3 is okay with them.

Therefore, in an effort we're trying to identify the contributors that have contributed under the terms of GPLv2 and where the "+" part was not explicitly mentioned or any other incompatible license. If we know that all contributors agreed to a relicense, we can go ahead and flip the license of the individual source file.

How can I help?

By identifying a contributor who as contributed under the terms of GPLv2, and contacting him if he wasn't already contacted. Ask him the following questions:

Are you okay with relicensing your contributions done under "GPLv2" to "GPLv2 or later"?

Are you okay with relicensing your contributions done under "GPLv2" to "GPLv2 or GPLv3" ?

Are you okay with relicensing your contributions done under "LGPLv2" to "LGPLv2 or later"?

Are you okay with relicensing your contributions done under "LGPLv2" to "LGPLv2 or LGPLv3"?

Are you okay with the Ethersex maintainer deciding on a future licensing change to your code, should that be necessary?

What's next?

checkout ethersex
run the script contrib/license-lister
you interpret the result. check each commit that is being complained about carefully. Try to get the copyright's holder's permission. If you get it, update the whitelist in the script.
review the list of declared copyright holders in the file.
if you're all clear, change the license to the most liberal license possible. Document your change verbosely in the git commit log.

Current Reply List

Please keep the list sorted by family name!
Please only use "YES" or "NO"

Name	GPLv2->GPLv2+	LGPLv2 -> LGPLv2+	GPLv2 -> GPLv2+v3	LGPLv2 -> LGPLv2+LGPLv3	Ethersex decides
Güntner, Maximilian	YES	YES	YES	YES	NO
Kunze, Erik	YES	YES	YES	YES	NO
Riegel, Roland	NO	NO	NO	NO	NO

Current TODO List

collect files with incompatible license.

File	License	Status
core/gui/font.c	3-clause BSD	OK
core/host/host.h	unknown	OK empty file - does not need a license
core/host/util/crc16.h	no license, has to be 3-clause BSD	File is a partial copy of util/crc16.h, so we should use the 3-clause BSD for that file
core/setbaud.h	3-clause BSD	removed - use utils/setbaud.h from avrlibc
hardware/ir/irmp/irmp_lib.c	GPLv2+	OK
hardware/lcd/s1d15g10/bunnies.h	unknown
hardware/lcd/ST7626/4x6.h	unknown
hardware/lcd/ST7626/ST7626.h	unknown
hardware/sram/sram.h	unknown
hardware/storage/sd_reader/byteordering.*	GPLv2/LGPLv2.1	contacted 31.10.11, replied - compatible
hardware/storage/sd_reader/fat*	GPLv2/LGPLv2.1	contacted 31.10.11, replied - compatible
hardware/storage/sd_reader/partition*	GPLv2/LGPLv2.1	contacted 31.10.11, replied - compatible
hardware/storage/sd_reader/sd_raw*	GPLv2/LGPLv2.1	contacted 31.10.11, replied - compatible
hardware/storage/sd_reader/sd-reader_config.h	GPLv2/LGPLv2.1	contacted 31.10.11, replied - compatible
protocols/bootp/bootphdr.h	unknown
protocols/uip/uip-conf.h	unknown
protocols/usb/usbconfig.h	GPLv2 or v3	OK, see the included protocols/usb/usbdrv/License.txt
protocols/ustream/vs1053.c	unknown	contacted 4.11.11, replied - agreed on MIT
protocols/ustream/vs1053.h	unknown	contacted 4.11.11, replied - agreed on MIT
services/glcdmenu/menu-interpreter/menudata-progmem.c	unknown	contacted 4.11.11, generated code - no need to license
services/glcdmenu/menu-interpreter/menu-interpreter-config.h	unknown	contacted 4.11.11, generated code - no need to license