Hello Eric,
Re "2. is it OK to keep GPLv2+ with Apache 2.0 because anyone can upgrade to
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+ = 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
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Eric Lavarde <Eric@...> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> On 30/11/10 10:03, Dan Polansky wrote:
>> 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 this:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Dimitry Polivaev<dpolivaev@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>> 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 Polivaev<dpolivaev@...>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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
|
