*just a quick note about licensing / legalities as this is what I work with quite a lot*
As long as you (the developers) have a copy of Section 13's "Exhibit A" from the MPL 1.1 filled in by the author(s) of those files, Freemind is in full compliance (for the MPL 1.1 sections) of the GPL v2.
If you do not have the appropriate file from the author(s) -- then those sections would have to be installed as extras or plugins in order to bring freemind under GPL v2 requirements.
Any files using the LPPL 1.2 or 1.3a (Latex Project Public License) are not compliant in any way with the GPL v2.
Directly from the FSF, regarding the incompatibility of MPL and the compatibility of MPL 1.1 with provisions:
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the MPL for this reason.
However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program (or parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. If part of a program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any other GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the program has a GPL-compatible license.
Initial Developer may designate portions of the Covered Code as "Multiple-Licensed". "Multiple-Licensed" means that the Initial Developer permits you to utilize portions of the Covered Code under Your choice of the MPL or the alternative licenses, if any, specified by the Initial Developer in the file described in Exhibit A.
"The contents of this file are subject to the Mozilla Public License
Version 1.1 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in
compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
Software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS"
basis, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the
License for the specific language governing rights and limitations
under the License.
The Original Code is ______________________________________.
The Initial Developer of the Original Code is ________________________.
Portions created by ______________________ are Copyright (C) ______
_______________________. All Rights Reserved.
Alternatively, the contents of this file may be used under the terms
of the _____ license (the "[___] License"), in which case the
provisions of [______] License are applicable instead of those
above. If you wish to allow use of your version of this file only
under the terms of the [____] License and not to allow others to use
your version of this file under the MPL, indicate your decision by
deleting the provisions above and replace them with the notice and
other provisions required by the [___] License. If you do not delete
the provisions above, a recipient may use your version of this file
under either the MPL or the [___] License."
NOTE: The text of this Exhibit A may differ slightly from the text of the notices in the Source Code files of the Original Code. You should use the text of this Exhibit A rather than the text found in the Original Code Source Code for Your Modifications.
Eric and Dan,
couldn't you look at the issue below?
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: [freemind - Complaints from users] Licensing problems
Datum: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:49:06 -0800
Von: SourceForge.net <email@example.com>
Read and respond to this message at:
I've initiated a work to include freemind in Fedora. This process ha
that although the bulk of the freemind sw is covered by the GPL v2
an option to use a later version), some parts are covered by the Mozilla
License 1.1. According the Fedora legal specialists, these licenses are
I'm definitely not a lawyer, but as I understand it these issues affects the
inclusion of freemind into any open source distribution. It definitely
the inclusion of freemind in Fedora, which is a Bad Thing.
The offending files lives in the accessories directory: marktree.js,
tohtml.xsl, toxhtml.xsl. Also plugins/latex hace the same license
links below for details.
Don't know what to do really. I guess one option might be to contact the
author to see if he might dual license the problematic files. Another option
might be to exclude certain pieces from the main package. This issue is new
to me, but others must have met it before.
Frankly, I'm stuck. Don't know what to do to make this fine piece of sw
available to the open source community
Links: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428413 (details on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing (license compatibility overview)
You are receiving this email because you elected to monitor this forum.
To stop monitoring this forum, login to SourceForge.net and visit:
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
Freemind-developer mailing list