I'm not very happy either about this, but:
1. it's not about the icons (where the issue is that they have a non-free
license, nothing we can do about it beside replacing them).
2. it's about the code and the libraries we're linking against and which
are not GPL-compatible. For this issue, we would either need to
remove/replace the libraries/code, or, as suggested, extend the license.
3. I also follow you on the "avoid new licenses", but here it's an
extension suggested by the GNU/FSF FAQ itself (see the link in the patch),
so it's a bit different (IMHO of course).
4. Regarding Joerg, no issue, I can contact him myself, but we need first
to get an agreement between us, else there is no point.
5. Regarding the patches, they are not copyrighted, so either (a) they are
of a certain importance and they should have been, or (b) they're small
enough that they don't need such a copyright. The issue is that if we go
down path (a) we can forget about FreeMind and spend the next years
chasing the copyright owners, so I'd suggest by default to go down path
(b) and pay more attention in the future.
6. Public domain is always an option, anybody can then re-license your
code into whatever they want, including an extended GPLv2+ license.
7. We could also consider the license extension as a temporary fix, and
give ourselves the aim to cleanup the code/libraries to come back to a
pure GPLv2+ license (or 3). The license would give us this freedom.
So, if you could reconsider your position in regard of the above points,
or if you need more discussion, let me know. I'm really concerned that
without this change, I won't be able (after 0.8.0) to get FreeMind 0.9.0
BTW: Dimitry, if you could document your agreement directly in the patch,
it would make tracking (and proving) easier.
Dan Polansky said:
> Hello all,
> I do not like the idea of making any extension to FreeMind's GNU GPL V2+.
> for one am not going to release my contributions under an extended
> unless convinced that it is critical for the continuation of the FreeMind
> project. In the worst case, I would consider the possibility of releasing
> contributions into public domain, which is a license that is easy to
> understand and manage. Promulgating various modified versions of licenses
> the open source landscape creates IMHO confusion, to be better avoided.
> Also, I do not have any personal contact to Joerg Mueller. I was in
> with him per email, back during 2002. He still has a user at SourceForge,
> theoretically, sending messages to that user would be a way to contact
> although I am quite pessimistic about the success of this method.
> Various other contributors have contributed patches under GNU GPL V2+.
> What should be much easier and safer as regards copyright is to replace
> the offending icons with icons that have an okay license.
> Also notice my patch, maybe one year old, in which I have posted icons for
> boldface and italics that are of my own creation, licensed appropriately.
> Best regards,
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Dimitry Polivaev <dpolivaev@...>
>> > Anyway, 2nd point is copyright and the same and some issues with
>> > licenses, I've created a patch on this topic:
>> > Can we discuss this and/or have at least the main copyright owners
>> > Chris, Dan and Dimitry agree to the "patch"?
>> personally I agree with the following copyright extension:
>> > In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders of
>> > FreeMind give you permission to combine FreeMind with free software
>> > programs or libraries that are released under an open source license
>> satisfying the open source definition given by the OSI
>> and approved by the OSI,
>> > see <http://opensource.org/>. You may copy and distribute such a
>> > following the terms of the GNU GPL for FreeMind and the licenses of
>> > the other code concerned.
>> > Note that people who make modified versions of FreeMind are not
>> > obligated to grant this special exception for their modified
>> > versions; it is their choice whether to do so. The GNU General Public
>> > License gives permission to release a modified version without this
>> > exception; this exception also makes it possible to release a
>> > modified version which carries forward this exception.
Eric de France, d'Allemagne et de Navarre