Discussion:
[Freemind-developer] GPL 3+
Dimitry Polivaev
2010-11-14 14:34:47 UTC
Permalink
Hello,

because Freeplane plug-ins and the distribution depends on some libraries licensed under Apache 2.0
and GPL 3, we are going to change the project license to "GPL version 3 or later". Because the same
basically apply to FreeMind too, I write to the FreeMind list before actual implementing the changes.

Kind regards,
Dimitry
Dan Polansky
2010-11-29 21:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Hello Dimitry

is this a good idea? FreeMind can be compiled also without being dynamically
linked to the libraries licensed under Apache 2.0. FreeMind max version
relies on GPL V2+ containing GPL V3. The source code of FreeMind itself can
still be licensed also under GPL V2 apart from being licensed under GPL V3+
without violating any license (GPL V2+ = GPL V2 plus GPL V3+). I am also not
clear about whether dynamic linking in Java is permeable to GPL
requirements.

Best regards,
Dan
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Hello,
because Freeplane plug-ins and the distribution depends on some libraries
licensed under Apache 2.0
and GPL 3, we are going to change the project license to "GPL version 3 or
later". Because the same
basically apply to FreeMind too, I write to the FreeMind list before actual
implementing the changes.
Kind regards,
Dimitry
Dimitry Polivaev
2010-11-29 22:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Hello Dan,

look here:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs

Best regards,
Dimitry
Post by Dan Polansky
Hello Dimitry
is this a good idea? FreeMind can be compiled also without being dynamically linked to the libraries
licensed under Apache 2.0. FreeMind max version relies on GPL V2+ containing GPL V3. The source code
of FreeMind itself can still be licensed also under GPL V2 apart from being licensed under GPL V3+
without violating any license (GPL V2+ = GPL V2 plus GPL V3+). I am also not clear about whether
dynamic linking in Java is permeable to GPL requirements.
Best regards,
Dan
Hello,
because Freeplane plug-ins and the distribution depends on some libraries licensed under Apache 2.0
and GPL 3, we are going to change the project license to "GPL version 3 or later". Because the same
basically apply to FreeMind too, I write to the FreeMind list before actual implementing the
changes.
Kind regards,
Dimitry
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App& Earn a Chance To Win $500!
Tap into the largest installed PC base& get more eyes on your game by
optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the
Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Freemind-developer mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer
Dan Polansky
2010-11-30 09:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Eric Lavarde
2010-11-30 19:25:42 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

honestly, we can probably discuss ages about licensing and what makes
sense or not, I think, none of the FAQs cited really answers the
questions we have, which are:

1. does GPL apply to dynamic linking -> yes, it applies, else the LGPL
wouldn't be needed for Java - see
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html, C/C++ also knows dynamic
linking and it applies there.

2. is it OK to keep GPLv2+ with Apache 2.0 because anyone can upgrade to
GPLv3, which is compatible? -> I answer no because it would be like
someone in the train having his unstamped ticket and telling the train
supervisor that he was about to stamp it.

At the end, as explained to me by a friend judge, you can get all kind
of more or less robust legal advice, it's always a jury which decides
what's correct, so it's only about limiting risk.
It's a bit of effort to upgrade from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ but what should be
the real drawback? And we're then on the safe side.

Anyway, Dimitry's communication was mostly out of politeness, to keep
you informed about what we're doing with what is still partly your code.
You don't need to follow us.

Hope this clarifies the situation.

Eric
Post by unknown
Hello Dimitry,
the hyperlinks that you have posted do not seem to speak of FreeMind
licensing situation.
1. Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a
GPL-covered plug-in?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins
Note: FreeMind is not a non-free program that is designed to load a
GPL-covered plugin.
2. Can I write free software that uses non-free libraries?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
Note: FreeMind is not free software that uses non-free libraries.
3. What legal issues come up if I use GPL-incompatible libraries with
GPL software?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
Note: FreeMind does link to libraries that are incompatible with GPL
V2, yet compatible with GPL V3.
Let us, for the purpose of the following argument, pessimistically
assume that dynamic linking is permeable to GPL requirements. Under
A person who compiles FreeMind without plugins can take advantage of
GPL V2 license, which is part of GPL V2+.
The standardly distributed maximum version of FreeMind in effect makes
use of GPL V3 license, which is part of GPL V2+.
Thus, I currently see no licensing problem in FreeMind that would
require change from GPL V2+ to GPL V3+.
Best regards,
Dan
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Hello Dan,
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
Best regards,
Dimitry
Post by Dan Polansky
Hello Dimitry
is this a good idea? FreeMind can be compiled also without being dynamically linked to the libraries
licensed under Apache 2.0. FreeMind max version relies on GPL V2+ containing GPL V3. The source code
of FreeMind itself can still be licensed also under GPL V2 apart from being licensed under GPL V3+
without violating any license (GPL V2+ = GPL V2 plus GPL V3+). I am also not clear about whether
dynamic linking in Java is permeable to GPL requirements.
Best regards,
Dan
Hello,
because Freeplane plug-ins and the distribution depends on some libraries licensed under Apache 2.0
and GPL 3, we are going to change the project license to "GPL version 3 or later". Because the same
basically apply to FreeMind too, I write to the FreeMind list before actual implementing the
changes.
Kind regards,
Dimitry
Dan Polansky
2010-11-30 19:55:42 UTC
Permalink
Eric Lavarde - FreeMind
2010-12-02 08:46:35 UTC
Permalink
Hi Dan,

I can agree that your interpretation might be right: as said, only a
judgment could finally decide (and hopefully we'll never have to find
out).

One last note though, without tentative to convince you: you seem to
assume that GPLv2+ means GPLv2 + GPLv3 + ... + GPLvInfinity, I think that
it means only GPLv2 with the possibility to relicense under GPLv3 or ...
or GPLvInfinity (the text says "you can *redistribute* it [under] any
later version", not that the code is also under any later version).

i.e. for me releasing the program in a specific version (with source code
and GPLv2+ text) with Apache 2.0 linkages is like taking the tram in zone
3 with a stamped zone 2 ticket and an unstamped zone 3 ticket; it is not
allowed. You would need to go out of the tram, stamp your zone 3 ticket
(relicense your code) and go back in the tram (release new version).

But I admit that I might be wrong, and your position correct. As also
already said it's all a question of risk mitigation.

Eric
Post by unknown
Hello Eric,
Re "2. is it OK to keep GPLv2+ with Apache 2.0 because anyone can upgrade
to
FreeMind is not "keeping GPLV2+ with Apache 2.0". What FreeMind does
is that it licenses each of its source files under GPL V2+. That alone
does not present any licensing problem. When FreeMind source code (GPL
V2+) is combined with plugins licensed under Apache 2.0, the result is
non-infringing because FreeMind source code is licensed under GPL V3+
by containment in GPL V2+. Those users who want to compile FreeMind
without the plugins can still take advantage of the licensing part
that is GPL V2 (GPL V2+ = GPLV2 + GPL V3+).
Re "... I answer no because it would be like someone in the train
having his unstamped ticket and telling the train supervisor that he
was about to stamp it.": I do not see that this analogy is correct.
There is no analogue of unstamped ticket in source code; there is no
act of stamping that turns unstamped source code into stamped source
code. By being licensed under GPL V2+, FreeMind source code is
licensed under multiple licenses. In a ticket analogy, it would be
like someone in the train having both a ticket for a tram and for the
train, both stamped. A person is allowed to carry a tram ticket (GPL
V2) as long as he also has the right train ticket (GPL V3+).
Best regards,
Dan
Post by Eric Lavarde
Hi,
honestly, we can probably discuss ages about licensing and what makes
sense or not, I think, none of the FAQs cited really answers the
1. does GPL apply to dynamic linking -> yes, it applies, else the LGPL
wouldn't be needed for Java - see
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html, C/C++ also knows dynamic
linking and it applies there.
2. is it OK to keep GPLv2+ with Apache 2.0 because anyone can upgrade to
GPLv3, which is compatible? -> I answer no because it would be like
someone in the train having his unstamped ticket and telling the train
supervisor that he was about to stamp it.
At the end, as explained to me by a friend judge, you can get all kind
of more or less robust legal advice, it's always a jury which decides
what's correct, so it's only about limiting risk.
It's a bit of effort to upgrade from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ but what should be
the real drawback? And we're then on the safe side.
Anyway, Dimitry's communication was mostly out of politeness, to keep
you informed about what we're doing with what is still partly your code.
You don't need to follow us.
Hope this clarifies the situation.
Eric
Post by unknown
Hello Dimitry,
the hyperlinks that you have posted do not seem to speak of FreeMind
licensing situation.
1. Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a
GPL-covered plug-in?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins
Note: FreeMind is not a non-free program that is designed to load a
GPL-covered plugin.
2. Can I write free software that uses non-free libraries?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
Note: FreeMind is not free software that uses non-free libraries.
The question from GNU FAQ that does seem to cover FreeMind situation is
3. What legal issues come up if I use GPL-incompatible libraries with
GPL software?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
Note: FreeMind does link to libraries that are incompatible with GPL
V2, yet compatible with GPL V3.
Let us, for the purpose of the following argument, pessimistically
assume that dynamic linking is permeable to GPL requirements. Under
A person who compiles FreeMind without plugins can take advantage of
GPL V2 license, which is part of GPL V2+.
The standardly distributed maximum version of FreeMind in effect makes
use of GPL V3 license, which is part of GPL V2+.
Thus, I currently see no licensing problem in FreeMind that would
require change from GPL V2+ to GPL V3+.
Best regards,
Dan
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Hello Dan,
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
Best regards,
Dimitry
Post by Dan Polansky
Hello Dimitry
is this a good idea? FreeMind can be compiled also without being
dynamically linked to the libraries
licensed under Apache 2.0. FreeMind max version relies on GPL V2+
containing GPL V3. The source code
of FreeMind itself can still be licensed also under GPL V2 apart from
being licensed under GPL V3+
without violating any license (GPL V2+ = GPL V2 plus GPL V3+). I am
also not clear about whether
dynamic linking in Java is permeable to GPL requirements.
Best regards,
Dan
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Dimitry
     Hello,
     because Freeplane plug-ins and the distribution depends on
some libraries licensed under Apache 2.0
     and GPL 3, we are going to change the project license to "GPL
version 3 or later". Because the same
     basically apply to FreeMind too, I write to the FreeMind list
before actual implementing the
     changes.
     Kind regards,
     Dimitry
--
Eric de France, d'Allemagne et de Navarre
Dan Polansky
2010-12-03 11:58:04 UTC
Permalink
Hello Eric,

let me quote the licensing header present in the source code files of FreeMind:

* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
* modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
* as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
* of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
unknown
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Hello Dimitry,

the hyperlinks that you have posted do not seem to speak of FreeMind
licensing situation.

The links posted by you:

1. Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a
GPL-covered plug-in?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins
Note: FreeMind is not a non-free program that is designed to load a
GPL-covered plugin.

2. Can I write free software that uses non-free libraries?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
Note: FreeMind is not free software that uses non-free libraries.

The question from GNU FAQ that does seem to cover FreeMind situation is thi=
s:

3. What legal issues come up if I use GPL-incompatible libraries with
GPL software?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
Note: FreeMind does link to libraries that are incompatible with GPL
V2, yet compatible with GPL V3.

Let us, for the purpose of the following argument, pessimistically
assume that dynamic linking is permeable to GPL requirements. Under
this assumption, what I have written about plugins still holds true:

A person who compiles FreeMind without plugins can take advantage of
GPL V2 license, which is part of GPL V2+.

The standardly distributed maximum version of FreeMind in effect makes
use of GPL V3 license, which is part of GPL V2+.

Thus, I currently see no licensing problem in FreeMind that would
require change from GPL V2+ to GPL V3+.

Best regards,
Dan
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Hello Dan,
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
Best regards,
Dimitry
Post by Dan Polansky
Hello Dimitry
is this a good idea? FreeMind can be compiled also without being dynami=
cally linked to the libraries
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Post by Dan Polansky
licensed under Apache 2.0. FreeMind max version relies on GPL V2+ conta=
ining GPL V3. The source code
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Post by Dan Polansky
of FreeMind itself can still be licensed also under GPL V2 apart from b=
eing licensed under GPL V3+
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Post by Dan Polansky
without violating any license (GPL V2+ =3D GPL V2 plus GPL V3+). I am a=
lso not clear about whether
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Post by Dan Polansky
dynamic linking in Java is permeable to GPL requirements.
Best regards,
Dan
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Hello,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 because Freeplane plug-ins and the distribution depends o=
n some libraries licensed under Apache 2.0
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Post by Dan Polansky
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 and GPL 3, we are going to change the project license to =
"GPL version 3 or later". Because the same
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Post by Dan Polansky
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 basically apply to FreeMind too, I write to the FreeMind =
list before actual implementing the
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Post by Dan Polansky
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 changes.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Kind regards,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Dimitry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Post by Dan Polansky
Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App& =C2=A0Earn a Chance To Win $50=
0!
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Post by Dan Polansky
Tap into the largest installed PC base& =C2=A0get more eyes on your gam=
e by
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Post by Dan Polansky
optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the
Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for gra=
bs.
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Post by Dan Polansky
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Freemind-developer mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App & Earn a Chance To Win $500!
Tap into the largest installed PC base & get more eyes on your game by
optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the
Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs=
.
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Freemind-developer mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer
unknown
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Hello Eric,

Re "2. is it OK to keep GPLv2+ with Apache 2.0 because anyone can upgrade t=
o
GPLv3, which is compatible? -> I answer no...":

FreeMind is not "keeping GPLV2+ with Apache 2.0". What FreeMind does
is that it licenses each of its source files under GPL V2+. That alone
does not present any licensing problem. When FreeMind source code (GPL
V2+) is combined with plugins licensed under Apache 2.0, the result is
non-infringing because FreeMind source code is licensed under GPL V3+
by containment in GPL V2+. Those users who want to compile FreeMind
without the plugins can still take advantage of the licensing part
that is GPL V2 (GPL V2+ =3D GPLV2 + GPL V3+).

Re "... I answer no because it would be like someone in the train
having his unstamped ticket and telling the train supervisor that he
was about to stamp it.": I do not see that this analogy is correct.
There is no analogue of unstamped ticket in source code; there is no
act of stamping that turns unstamped source code into stamped source
code. By being licensed under GPL V2+, FreeMind source code is
licensed under multiple licenses. In a ticket analogy, it would be
like someone in the train having both a ticket for a tram and for the
train, both stamped. A person is allowed to carry a tram ticket (GPL
V2) as long as he also has the right train ticket (GPL V3+).

Best regards,
Dan
Post by Eric Lavarde
Hi,
honestly, we can probably discuss ages about licensing and what makes
sense or not, I think, none of the FAQs cited really answers the
1. does GPL apply to dynamic linking -> yes, it applies, else the LGPL
wouldn't be needed for Java - see
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html, C/C++ also knows dynamic
linking and it applies there.
2. is it OK to keep GPLv2+ with Apache 2.0 because anyone can upgrade to
GPLv3, which is compatible? -> I answer no because it would be like
someone in the train having his unstamped ticket and telling the train
supervisor that he was about to stamp it.
At the end, as explained to me by a friend judge, you can get all kind
of more or less robust legal advice, it's always a jury which decides
what's correct, so it's only about limiting risk.
It's a bit of effort to upgrade from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ but what should be
the real drawback? And we're then on the safe side.
Anyway, Dimitry's communication was mostly out of politeness, to keep
you informed about what we're doing with what is still partly your code.
You don't need to follow us.
Hope this clarifies the situation.
Eric
Post by unknown
Hello Dimitry,
the hyperlinks that you have posted do not seem to speak of FreeMind
licensing situation.
1. Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a
GPL-covered plug-in?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins
Note: FreeMind is not a non-free program that is designed to load a
GPL-covered plugin.
2. Can I write free software that uses non-free libraries?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
Note: FreeMind is not free software that uses non-free libraries.
The question from GNU FAQ that does seem to cover FreeMind situation is =
3. What legal issues come up if I use GPL-incompatible libraries with
GPL software?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
Note: FreeMind does link to libraries that are incompatible with GPL
V2, yet compatible with GPL V3.
Let us, for the purpose of the following argument, pessimistically
assume that dynamic linking is permeable to GPL requirements. Under
A person who compiles FreeMind without plugins can take advantage of
GPL V2 license, which is part of GPL V2+.
The standardly distributed maximum version of FreeMind in effect makes
use of GPL V3 license, which is part of GPL V2+.
Thus, I currently see no licensing problem in FreeMind that would
require change from GPL V2+ to GPL V3+.
Best regards,
Dan
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Hello Dan,
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
Best regards,
Dimitry
Post by Dan Polansky
Hello Dimitry
is this a good idea? FreeMind can be compiled also without being dynam=
ically linked to the libraries
Post by Eric Lavarde
Post by unknown
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Post by Dan Polansky
licensed under Apache 2.0. FreeMind max version relies on GPL V2+ cont=
aining GPL V3. The source code
Post by Eric Lavarde
Post by unknown
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Post by Dan Polansky
of FreeMind itself can still be licensed also under GPL V2 apart from =
being licensed under GPL V3+
Post by Eric Lavarde
Post by unknown
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Post by Dan Polansky
without violating any license (GPL V2+ =3D GPL V2 plus GPL V3+). I am =
also not clear about whether
Post by Eric Lavarde
Post by unknown
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Post by Dan Polansky
dynamic linking in Java is permeable to GPL requirements.
Best regards,
Dan
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Hello,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0because Freeplane plug-ins and the distribution de=
pends on some libraries licensed under Apache 2.0
Post by Eric Lavarde
Post by unknown
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Post by Dan Polansky
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0and GPL 3, we are going to change the project lice=
nse to "GPL version 3 or later". Because the same
Post by Eric Lavarde
Post by unknown
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Post by Dan Polansky
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0basically apply to FreeMind too, I write to the Fr=
eeMind list before actual implementing the
Post by Eric Lavarde
Post by unknown
Post by Dimitry Polivaev
Post by Dan Polansky
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0changes.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Kind regards,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Dimitry
Dimitry Polivaev
2010-12-02 10:52:24 UTC
Permalink
Hello Eric,

after reading your arguments I have got some doubts, and I would like to write them here.
If you interpretation were right and the complete source code had to be relicensed, we also had to relicense the code of all GPL2+ libraries we use in the project like SimplyHTML. And such libraries usually are developed outside the project. Everyone has a right to relicense them, but if it requires changes in their source code (replace GPL2+ by GPL3+) it is only possible by forking the correspondent projects.

Forking of projects just for changing some comments does not make much sense for me. And for distributions like the Debian it also do not seem to track multiple versions of the source code with the only difference which license is mentioned there. So  I am afraid the requirement to relicense the source code can not be satisfied at least in such cases.

On the other side I do not see any difference between FreeMind / Freeplane own source code and the source code of other GPL2+ licensed components in sense of the program code districution. Therefore I think that for applying GPL3+ to the whole we do not have to change licenses of the singe source code files, but only the complete license of the distribution / project as a whole.

Therefore I think it does make sense to state that Freeplane and FreeMind max distributions are distributed under GPL3+ , and that there is no need to change any source code file to do so.

Further I think that it makes sense that Freeplane and FreeMind have the same licensing policy.

@Dan:

One more note: currently FreeMind core itself links against Apache Commons Lang (http://commons.apache.org/lang/) which is  licensed under Apache 2.0 . Freeplane core does the same thing and uses  Apache Commons Lang even more than the FreeMind itself. So seen even the minor distributions currently may not use GPL2.

Regards,
Dimitry
----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----
Von: Eric Lavarde - FreeMind
Gesendet: 02.12.10 09:46 Uhr
Betreff: Re: [Freemind-developer] GPL 3+
Hi Dan,
I can agree that your interpretation might be right: as said, only a
judgment could finally decide (and hopefully we'll never have to find
out).
One last note though, without tentative to convince you: you seem to
assume that GPLv2+ means GPLv2 + GPLv3 + ... + GPLvInfinity, I think that
it means only GPLv2 with the possibility to relicense under GPLv3 or ...
or GPLvInfinity (the text says "you can *redistribute* it [under] any
later version", not that the code is also under any later version).
i.e. for me releasing the program in a specific version (with source code
and GPLv2+ text) with Apache 2.0 linkages is like taking the tram in zone
3 with a stamped zone 2 ticket and an unstamped zone 3 ticket; it is not
allowed. You would need to go out of the tram, stamp your zone 3 ticket
(relicense your code) and go back in the tram (release new version).
But I admit that I might be wrong, and your position correct. As also
already said it's all a question of risk mitigation.
Eric
Dan Polansky
2010-12-03 12:16:31 UTC
Permalink
Hello Dimitry,

regarding the use of Apache Commons Lang
(http://commons.apache.org/lang/, licensed under Apache 2.0) in
FreeMind core: I did not realize this was the case. On one hand, that
is not so nice: it means that even a minimal distribution of FreeMind
has to make use of GPL V3 present in GPL V2+. OTOH, licensing FreeMind
core under GPL V2+ has still the advantage that anyone can take a
method or a class from the core and use it in a program licensed under
GPL V2, perhaps in a modified form.

Be it as it may, even the use of Apache Commons Lang in FreeMind core
creates no licensing incompatibility as far as I can see, because of
the presence of GPL V3 within GPL V2+.

The migration from GPL V2+ to GPL V3+ would really be just dropping
the "GPL V2" term from the open-ended sum "GPL V2 + GPL V3 + GPL V4 +
...", making it harder to take new changes to the code over to
programs that are licensed only under GPL V2. What has been already
released under GPL V2+ remains so; there is no way one can retract a
license that one has already granted, as far as I know.

On a related note, if you decide to integrate a GPL V3 component into
Freeplane, be aware that you thereby constrain the resulting
combination from GPL V3+ to GPL V3 without the plus, given the
assumption that dynamic linking is permeable to GPL requirements. This
assumption seems to be the position of FSF, but it is ultimately up to
the courts to accept or reject the assuption.

Best regards,
Dan
Eric Lavarde
2010-12-04 13:06:37 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

on the remark from Dimitry that going from GPLv2 to GPLv3 in order to
avoid incompatibility with Apache 2.0, we create an incompatibility with
GPLv2 is a very good remark, which I didn't think about.

See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html

Anyway, I've decided to ask the question and then we'll know...

Eric
Post by unknown
Hello Dimitry,
regarding the use of Apache Commons Lang
(http://commons.apache.org/lang/, licensed under Apache 2.0) in
FreeMind core: I did not realize this was the case. On one hand, that
is not so nice: it means that even a minimal distribution of FreeMind
has to make use of GPL V3 present in GPL V2+. OTOH, licensing FreeMind
core under GPL V2+ has still the advantage that anyone can take a
method or a class from the core and use it in a program licensed under
GPL V2, perhaps in a modified form.
Be it as it may, even the use of Apache Commons Lang in FreeMind core
creates no licensing incompatibility as far as I can see, because of
the presence of GPL V3 within GPL V2+.
The migration from GPL V2+ to GPL V3+ would really be just dropping
the "GPL V2" term from the open-ended sum "GPL V2 + GPL V3 + GPL V4 +
...", making it harder to take new changes to the code over to
programs that are licensed only under GPL V2. What has been already
released under GPL V2+ remains so; there is no way one can retract a
license that one has already granted, as far as I know.
On a related note, if you decide to integrate a GPL V3 component into
Freeplane, be aware that you thereby constrain the resulting
combination from GPL V3+ to GPL V3 without the plus, given the
assumption that dynamic linking is permeable to GPL requirements. This
assumption seems to be the position of FSF, but it is ultimately up to
the courts to accept or reject the assuption.
Best regards,
Dan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App& Earn a Chance To Win $500!
Tap into the largest installed PC base& get more eyes on your game by
optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the
Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Freemind-developer mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer
Christian Foltin (GMX)
2010-12-04 18:55:50 UTC
Permalink
Dear all,

recently, I removed commons-lang from FreeMind as it was only used in a
single file and this usage wasn't difficult to replace.

HTH, Chris
Post by Eric Lavarde
Hi,
on the remark from Dimitry that going from GPLv2 to GPLv3 in order to
avoid incompatibility with Apache 2.0, we create an incompatibility
with GPLv2 is a very good remark, which I didn't think about.
See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html
Anyway, I've decided to ask the question and then we'll know...
Eric
Post by unknown
Hello Dimitry,
regarding the use of Apache Commons Lang
(http://commons.apache.org/lang/, licensed under Apache 2.0) in
FreeMind core: I did not realize this was the case. On one hand, that
is not so nice: it means that even a minimal distribution of FreeMind
has to make use of GPL V3 present in GPL V2+. OTOH, licensing FreeMind
core under GPL V2+ has still the advantage that anyone can take a
method or a class from the core and use it in a program licensed under
GPL V2, perhaps in a modified form.
Be it as it may, even the use of Apache Commons Lang in FreeMind core
creates no licensing incompatibility as far as I can see, because of
the presence of GPL V3 within GPL V2+.
The migration from GPL V2+ to GPL V3+ would really be just dropping
the "GPL V2" term from the open-ended sum "GPL V2 + GPL V3 + GPL V4 +
...", making it harder to take new changes to the code over to
programs that are licensed only under GPL V2. What has been already
released under GPL V2+ remains so; there is no way one can retract a
license that one has already granted, as far as I know.
On a related note, if you decide to integrate a GPL V3 component into
Freeplane, be aware that you thereby constrain the resulting
combination from GPL V3+ to GPL V3 without the plus, given the
assumption that dynamic linking is permeable to GPL requirements. This
assumption seems to be the position of FSF, but it is ultimately up to
the courts to accept or reject the assuption.
Best regards,
Dan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App& Earn a Chance To Win $500!
Tap into the largest installed PC base& get more eyes on your game by
optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the
Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Freemind-developer mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What happens now with your Lotus Notes apps - do you make another costly
upgrade, or settle for being marooned without product support? Time to move
off Lotus Notes and onto the cloud with Force.com, apps are easier to build,
use, and manage than apps on traditional platforms. Sign up for the Lotus
Notes Migration Kit to learn more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/salesforce-d2d
_______________________________________________
Freemind-developer mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer
Dan Polansky
2010-12-04 19:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Hello Chris,

that is a good news, thanks! Then at least a minimum version of
FreeMind can be compiled and released under pure GPL V2+.

Best regards,
Dan


On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Christian Foltin (GMX)
Post by Christian Foltin (GMX)
Dear all,
recently, I removed commons-lang from FreeMind as it was only used in a
single file and this usage wasn't difficult to replace.
HTH, Chris
Loading...