diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'why-rt-liberation-is-under-gplv3.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | why-rt-liberation-is-under-gplv3.txt | 87 |
1 files changed, 87 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/why-rt-liberation-is-under-gplv3.txt b/why-rt-liberation-is-under-gplv3.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..114369a --- /dev/null +++ b/why-rt-liberation-is-under-gplv3.txt @@ -0,0 +1,87 @@ +As of early 2020, RT is under GPLv2. GPLv3 is incompatible with +GPLv2. So you might ask the question: Why and how is rt-liberation +under GPLv3? + +It's because I emailed Best Practical (the people behind RT) and got +their excplicit permission to do so. Included below is the complete +email correspondence: + +---------------------------------------------------------------------- + +From: "Jim Brandt via RT" <sales@bestpractical.com> +Subject: [bestpractical.com #225843] licensing question +To: yoni@rabkins.net +Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 08:52:08 -0400 (11 hours, 9 minutes, 18 seconds ago) +Reply-To: sales@bestpractical.com + +On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 3:21:16 PM, yoni@rabkins.net wrote: +> +> Hello, +> +> I'm the author of rt-liberation, which is an interface to RT from +> GNU/Emacs. It is available at: http://www.nongnu.org/rtliber/ +> +> rt-liberation uses the REST API to communicate with RT. +> +> rt-liberation is licensed under GPLv2 in order to be compatible with +> the license of RT. +> +> However, I've been asked to add rt-liberation to Emacs proper (via the +> GNU ELPA). This is great news, since it will make using RT a built-in +> property of GNU/Emacs. +> +> But GNU/Emacs is licensed under GPLv3, which is mutually incompatible +> with GPLv2. I would need to upgrade my work, rt-liberation, to GPLv3 in +> order to be accepted into Emacs. +> +> My question is therefore: may I upgrade rt-liberation to GPLv3? Are you +> OK with a GPLv3-licensed work communicating with RT via the REST API? +> Another way of putting it: do you consider communication via the REST +> API to RT to be creating a derivative work under the terms of GPLv2. +> +> Thank you for your consideration. + +Hi Yoni, + +I agree it would be really cool to have an RT interface built into +emacs, thanks for your work. + +Regarding the license, if you wrote the code that interfaces with RT +only via the REST API, you can change the license for your code as you +see fit. Using the REST API doesn't require pulling in any of RT's +code and i don't think we would seek to release any of your code as +part of RT. There are many different systems, open source and +proprietary, that interface with RT via the REST API and each of those +systems retains its own license. + +There are various projects that provide wrappers on the RT REST API to +make it easier to use from different languages (Python, Ruby, etc.) +and if you used an existing project or library to access the REST API, +you may need to consider the license for that project. But it looks +like you wrote the REST code yourself when you converted from using +the RT CLI, so it should be an issue. + +Thanks and good luck, +Jim + +---- + +From: "Jim Brandt via RT" <sales@bestpractical.com> +Subject: [bestpractical.com #225843] licensing question +To: yoni@rabkins.net +Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 13:55:49 -0400 (6 hours, 5 minutes, 44 seconds ago) +Reply-To: sales@bestpractical.com + +> > But it looks +> > like you wrote the REST code yourself when you converted from using +> > the RT CLI, so it should be an issue. +> +> Yes, I wrote all of it myself so that it is self-contained. I'm going to +> assume this is a typo and you meant to write "shouldn't". + +Correct, that should have said "so it shouldn't be an issue". Sorry about that! + +Thanks, +Jim + + |