freemind-developer Mailing List for FreeMind (Page 4)
A premier mind-mapping software written in Java
Brought to you by:
christianfoltin,
danielpolansky
You can subscribe to this list here.
2000 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
(7) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(12) |
Dec
(3) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2001 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(1) |
May
(3) |
Jun
(14) |
Jul
(21) |
Aug
|
Sep
(2) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2002 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(1) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2003 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
(2) |
May
(1) |
Jun
(11) |
Jul
(12) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
(5) |
Nov
(12) |
Dec
(4) |
2004 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
|
Mar
(2) |
Apr
|
May
(1) |
Jun
|
Jul
(1) |
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
(1) |
2005 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
(1) |
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
(2) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
(2) |
Dec
(1) |
2006 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
(1) |
Jul
|
Aug
(2) |
Sep
(2) |
Oct
(8) |
Nov
(3) |
Dec
|
2007 |
Jan
(1) |
Feb
(76) |
Mar
(61) |
Apr
(25) |
May
(25) |
Jun
(91) |
Jul
(137) |
Aug
(139) |
Sep
(52) |
Oct
(70) |
Nov
(38) |
Dec
(77) |
2008 |
Jan
(225) |
Feb
(91) |
Mar
(68) |
Apr
(20) |
May
(34) |
Jun
(39) |
Jul
(23) |
Aug
(9) |
Sep
(32) |
Oct
(11) |
Nov
(8) |
Dec
(13) |
2009 |
Jan
(13) |
Feb
(20) |
Mar
(6) |
Apr
(8) |
May
(20) |
Jun
(5) |
Jul
(3) |
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(2) |
Nov
(3) |
Dec
(12) |
2010 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
(10) |
Mar
(3) |
Apr
(3) |
May
(3) |
Jun
(1) |
Jul
(7) |
Aug
(4) |
Sep
(2) |
Oct
(12) |
Nov
(23) |
Dec
(25) |
2011 |
Jan
(4) |
Feb
(30) |
Mar
(16) |
Apr
(9) |
May
(3) |
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
2012 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(2) |
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
From: Christian F. (GMX) <chr...@gm...> - 2010-12-09 20:53:12
|
Dear Dan, both is fixed in CVS. The first, you can verify by exchanging the xslt script. Best regards, Chris Am 05.12.10 11:57, schrieb Dan Polansky: > Hello Chris, > > I have closed two bugs fixed in 0.9.0 RC12. > > There is still at least one issue with the conversion, newly so: > > Each converted note now starts with the following text: > > <html xmlns:HtmlTools="xalan://freemind.main.HtmlTools"><head/> > > This seems to be a side effect, which should be removed. This was not > there in 0.9.0 RC10 and seems undesirable. This "xalan" text is not > only shown in the source code pane but > also saved to the mind map file. > > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=3096369&group_id=7118&atid=107118 > > Another thing: in RC11 you have introduced some quiet failure when > some issues occur duing the conversion. This failure is really quiet > and inconspicuous, which is not good. The behavior of RC10 was much > better IMHO: when there was a conversion problem, FreeMind failed as > conspicuously as possible without crashing. In RC11, FreeMind says in > the status line "Error on conversion. Continue without conversion. > Some elements may be lost!", but this is really easy to overlook; at > first, I have overlooked this message and only wondered why a > converted mind map has missing notes. The thing is, the status line is > quickly erased: it suffices that I select another node and the status > line gets erased. I think it would really be much better to revert to > RC10 behavior in this regard. The conspicuousness of the conversion > problem in RC10 was good: it helped me discover a problem that I would > otherwise be much more likely to overlook. The conversion problem was > due to the stack problem, one that should no longer be there. > > Best regards, > Dan > > > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Christian Foltin (GMX) > <chr...@gm...> wrote: >> Hi Dan, >> >> recently, I published 0.9.0 RC12 which solves every known issue (IMHO). >> Even the string conversion has been moved from XSLT to a java method >> without memory problems. >> Moreover, commons-lang was removed. >> >> I hope, that you are able to test it, soon. >> >> Best regards, Chris > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > Fre...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer |
From: Christian F. (GMX) <chr...@gm...> - 2010-12-09 20:51:05
|
Hi Dan, the <p align...> comes from the way, SimplyHTML stores everything. Here, there is a note with content "bla" stored: <node CREATED="1291927734954" ID="ID_1326457101" MODIFIED="1291927740859" POSITION="left" TEXT="asdfadsf"> <richcontent TYPE="NOTE"><html> <head> </head> <body> <p> bla </p> </body> </html> </richcontent> </node> In order to have the same in the converted notes, the align was added by me. Best regards, Chris Am 05.12.10 12:09, schrieb Dan Polansky: > Hello Chris, > > when we are at the HTML text of converted notes, a minor issue that I > estimate is easy to fix: The text of notes contains '<p align="left">' > instead of '<p>'. What is this good for? Can this be removed so that > the notes contain plain "<p>"? I do not see any visible difference of > adding 'align="left"'; it seems to be needless cruft. If this is risky > or difficult to fix, then just forget this email. I just thought this > could be handled in one batch of work with the removal of > 'xmlns:HtmlTools="xalan://freemind.main.HtmlTools"'. > > Best regards, > Dan > > > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Dan Polansky <dan...@gm...> wrote: >> Hello Chris, >> >> I have closed two bugs fixed in 0.9.0 RC12. >> >> There is still at least one issue with the conversion, newly so: >> >> Each converted note now starts with the following text: >> >> <html xmlns:HtmlTools="xalan://freemind.main.HtmlTools"><head/> >> >> This seems to be a side effect, which should be removed. This was not >> there in 0.9.0 RC10 and seems undesirable. This "xalan" text is not >> only shown in the source code pane but >> also saved to the mind map file. >> >> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=3096369&group_id=7118&atid=107118 >> >> Another thing: in RC11 you have introduced some quiet failure when >> some issues occur duing the conversion. This failure is really quiet >> and inconspicuous, which is not good. The behavior of RC10 was much >> better IMHO: when there was a conversion problem, FreeMind failed as >> conspicuously as possible without crashing. In RC11, FreeMind says in >> the status line "Error on conversion. Continue without conversion. >> Some elements may be lost!", but this is really easy to overlook; at >> first, I have overlooked this message and only wondered why a >> converted mind map has missing notes. The thing is, the status line is >> quickly erased: it suffices that I select another node and the status >> line gets erased. I think it would really be much better to revert to >> RC10 behavior in this regard. The conspicuousness of the conversion >> problem in RC10 was good: it helped me discover a problem that I would >> otherwise be much more likely to overlook. The conversion problem was >> due to the stack problem, one that should no longer be there. >> >> Best regards, >> Dan >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Christian Foltin (GMX) >> <chr...@gm...> wrote: >>> Hi Dan, >>> >>> recently, I published 0.9.0 RC12 which solves every known issue (IMHO). >>> Even the string conversion has been moved from XSLT to a java method >>> without memory problems. >>> Moreover, commons-lang was removed. >>> >>> I hope, that you are able to test it, soon. >>> >>> Best regards, Chris >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > Fre...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer |
From: Eric L. <fre...@zo...> - 2010-12-07 19:25:30
|
Hello, it looks like I've been overly pessimistic (and/or pedantic), and the position from the FSF representative is that GPLv2+ is compatible with Apache and with GPLv3, which is very good news. Thanks for the interesting discussion and your attention, Eric PS: Dimitry, I will send this email also to the Freeplane mailing list for the archives, should someone come later with similar concerns. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [gnu.org #643378] Re: GPLv2+/Apache 2.0 explicitly/implicitly compatible with GPLv3+ Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 16:47:36 -0500 From: Yoni Rabkin via RT <lic...@fs...> Reply-To: lic...@fs... To: Eric@Lavar.de Hello and thank you for writing in. > Questions: > 1. is Apache 2 compatible with GPLv2+, as it *implicitly* contains > GPLv3? yes > 2. is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2+, as it *implicitly* contains GPLv3? yes (just a nit-pick: GPLv2+ doesn't really "contain" GPLv3; instead GPLv2+ allows you to distribute the software under GPLv3 (or later) without any further permission required from the copyright holder/s) > Or more practically expressed: > 1. do we need to *explicitly* re-license our program under GPLv3+ to > make it compatible with Apache 2? You don't need to relicense; but since your software will be _effectively_ under GPLv3+ there is no harm in doing it. > 2. if we would do this, would we need also to *explicitly* re-license > all the GPLv2+ libraries we're using (and possibly recursively all > libraries used by these libraries) You don't need to relicense here either; by licensing their software under GPLv2+ the authors of all of those libraries explicitly gave you permission to use their software under GPLv3. > I'm assuming that none of the libraries can be considered as a system > library. You are right again. If a particular library is a System Library you don't need to worry about all of the above when dealing with its licensing. I hope these answers are of help. -- I am not a lawyer, the above is not legal advice Regards, Yoni Rabkin |
From: Dan P. <dan...@gm...> - 2010-12-05 11:09:17
|
Hello Chris, when we are at the HTML text of converted notes, a minor issue that I estimate is easy to fix: The text of notes contains '<p align="left">' instead of '<p>'. What is this good for? Can this be removed so that the notes contain plain "<p>"? I do not see any visible difference of adding 'align="left"'; it seems to be needless cruft. If this is risky or difficult to fix, then just forget this email. I just thought this could be handled in one batch of work with the removal of 'xmlns:HtmlTools="xalan://freemind.main.HtmlTools"'. Best regards, Dan On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Dan Polansky <dan...@gm...> wrote: > Hello Chris, > > I have closed two bugs fixed in 0.9.0 RC12. > > There is still at least one issue with the conversion, newly so: > > Each converted note now starts with the following text: > > <html xmlns:HtmlTools="xalan://freemind.main.HtmlTools"><head/> > > This seems to be a side effect, which should be removed. This was not > there in 0.9.0 RC10 and seems undesirable. This "xalan" text is not > only shown in the source code pane but > also saved to the mind map file. > > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=3096369&group_id=7118&atid=107118 > > Another thing: in RC11 you have introduced some quiet failure when > some issues occur duing the conversion. This failure is really quiet > and inconspicuous, which is not good. The behavior of RC10 was much > better IMHO: when there was a conversion problem, FreeMind failed as > conspicuously as possible without crashing. In RC11, FreeMind says in > the status line "Error on conversion. Continue without conversion. > Some elements may be lost!", but this is really easy to overlook; at > first, I have overlooked this message and only wondered why a > converted mind map has missing notes. The thing is, the status line is > quickly erased: it suffices that I select another node and the status > line gets erased. I think it would really be much better to revert to > RC10 behavior in this regard. The conspicuousness of the conversion > problem in RC10 was good: it helped me discover a problem that I would > otherwise be much more likely to overlook. The conversion problem was > due to the stack problem, one that should no longer be there. > > Best regards, > Dan > > > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Christian Foltin (GMX) > <chr...@gm...> wrote: >> Hi Dan, >> >> recently, I published 0.9.0 RC12 which solves every known issue (IMHO). >> Even the string conversion has been moved from XSLT to a java method >> without memory problems. >> Moreover, commons-lang was removed. >> >> I hope, that you are able to test it, soon. >> >> Best regards, Chris > |
From: Dan P. <dan...@gm...> - 2010-12-05 10:57:31
|
Hello Chris, I have closed two bugs fixed in 0.9.0 RC12. There is still at least one issue with the conversion, newly so: Each converted note now starts with the following text: <html xmlns:HtmlTools="xalan://freemind.main.HtmlTools"><head/> This seems to be a side effect, which should be removed. This was not there in 0.9.0 RC10 and seems undesirable. This "xalan" text is not only shown in the source code pane but also saved to the mind map file. http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=3096369&group_id=7118&atid=107118 Another thing: in RC11 you have introduced some quiet failure when some issues occur duing the conversion. This failure is really quiet and inconspicuous, which is not good. The behavior of RC10 was much better IMHO: when there was a conversion problem, FreeMind failed as conspicuously as possible without crashing. In RC11, FreeMind says in the status line "Error on conversion. Continue without conversion. Some elements may be lost!", but this is really easy to overlook; at first, I have overlooked this message and only wondered why a converted mind map has missing notes. The thing is, the status line is quickly erased: it suffices that I select another node and the status line gets erased. I think it would really be much better to revert to RC10 behavior in this regard. The conspicuousness of the conversion problem in RC10 was good: it helped me discover a problem that I would otherwise be much more likely to overlook. The conversion problem was due to the stack problem, one that should no longer be there. Best regards, Dan On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Christian Foltin (GMX) <chr...@gm...> wrote: > Hi Dan, > > recently, I published 0.9.0 RC12 which solves every known issue (IMHO). > Even the string conversion has been moved from XSLT to a java method > without memory problems. > Moreover, commons-lang was removed. > > I hope, that you are able to test it, soon. > > Best regards, Chris |
From: Christian F. (GMX) <chr...@gm...> - 2010-12-04 21:38:14
|
Hi Dan, recently, I published 0.9.0 RC12 which solves every known issue (IMHO). Even the string conversion has been moved from XSLT to a java method without memory problems. Moreover, commons-lang was removed. I hope, that you are able to test it, soon. Best regards, Chris Am 01.12.10 09:05, schrieb Dan Polansky: > Hello Chris, > > scripting: I have updated the bug report with a further comment: > > Further comment to my previous comment: It seems that the thing with > setting the security manager two times to get it removed is intentional; > there is a note to that effect at the top of FreeMindSecurityManager class. > > The key thing is that, after the recent bug fix, the security manager is > being removed twice (as it should not): once in the method "evaluate", and > once before the line "System.setOut(oldOut)". It seems that it should > suffice that the line > "securityManager.setFinalSecurityManager(scriptingSecurityManager);" before > "System.setOut(oldOut)" is commented out. > > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2789907&group_id=7118&atid=107118 > > Best regards, > Dan > > > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Dan Polansky <dan...@gm...> wrote: >> Hello Chris, >> >> I have had a look at the scripting bug, and have proposed a bug fix, >> one that you need to review, though. I have posted the fix to the bug >> report: >> >> Scripts do not work if file operations are not permitted >> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2789907&group_id=7118&atid=107118 >> >> The last comment to the bug report, for your convenience: >> >> I get the undesirable behavior described with 0.9.0 RC11 removed by >> performing the following change in ScriptingEngine.executeScript method: >> >> // setting the same security manager the second time causes it to be >> // removed. >> //securityManager.setFinalSecurityManager(scriptingSecurityManager); // >> Commented out. --Dan >> securityManager.setFinalSecurityManager(null); // Inserted: be explicit >> about setting it to null. --Dan >> >> At that location, the security manager should be disabled; if it is not, >> it causes problems with loading of some classes later. Setting an object >> two times to disable something seems like a bug-prone idea. I am setting >> the final security manager as null, as that is the intended effect. I am >> not the author of the code, so I am not sure whether it matches the >> intention. >> >> As regards the method securityManager.setFinalSecurityManager, I do not >> understand why it is implemented the way it is: >> >> public void setFinalSecurityManager(SecurityManager >> pFinalSecurityManager) { >> if(pFinalSecurityManager == mFinalSecurityManager) { >> mFinalSecurityManager = null; >> return; >> } >> if(mFinalSecurityManager != null) { >> throw new SecurityException("There is a SecurityManager installed >> already."); >> } >> mFinalSecurityManager = pFinalSecurityManager; >> } >> >> I would implement the method as follows: >> >> public void setFinalSecurityManager(SecurityManager pFinalSecurityManager) >> { >> mFinalSecurityManager = pFinalSecurityManager; >> } >> >> The method should not worry about whether there is already a security >> manager set. When the caller wants to get the security manager removed, the >> caller should be very explicit about it, by passing "null". >> >> --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 > Fre...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer > |
From: Dan P. <dan...@gm...> - 2010-12-04 19:39:12
|
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) <chr...@gm...> wrote: > 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 |
From: Christian F. (GMX) <chr...@gm...> - 2010-12-04 18:55:58
|
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 Am 04.12.10 14:06, schrieb 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 > > On 03/12/10 13:16, Dan Polansky wrote: >> 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 >> Fre...@li... >> 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 > Fre...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer |
From: Eric L. <fre...@zo...> - 2010-12-04 13:06:47
|
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 On 03/12/10 13:16, Dan Polansky wrote: > 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 > Fre...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer > |
From: Dan P. <dan...@gm...> - 2010-12-03 12:16:38
|
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 |
From: Dan P. <dan...@gm...> - 2010-12-03 11:58:11
|
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. >From this header, I still assume that GPLv2+ means GPLv2 + GPLv3 + ... + any later GPL. This header seems incompatible with your reading: "...it means only GPLv2 with the possibility to relicense under GPLv3". As I understand the header, it says that the licensee (a person to whom a license is granted) can himself select which version of the license to apply; the licensee does not need to ask the authors of the code to grant him GPL V3, as that is what they have already done. Best regards, Dan |
From: Dimitry P. <dpo...@gm...> - 2010-12-02 10:52:34
|
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 > An: fre...@li... > 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 |
From: Eric L. - F. <fre...@zo...> - 2010-12-02 09:00:00
|
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 said: > 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 <Er...@la...> 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<dpo...@gm...> >>> Â 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<dpo...@gm...<mailto:dpo...@gm...>> Â wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Â Â Â Hello, >>>>> >>>>> Â Â Â because Freeplane plug-ins and the distribution depends on >>>>> some libraries licensed under Apache 2.0 >>>>> Â Â Â and GPL 3, we are going to change the project license to "GPL >>>>> version 3 or later". Because the same >>>>> Â Â Â basically apply to FreeMind too, I write to the FreeMind list >>>>> before actual implementing the >>>>> Â Â Â changes. >>>>> >>>>> Â Â Â Kind regards, >>>>> Â Â Â Dimitry -- Eric de France, d'Allemagne et de Navarre |
From: Dan P. <dan...@gm...> - 2010-12-01 08:06:03
|
Hello Chris, scripting: I have updated the bug report with a further comment: Further comment to my previous comment: It seems that the thing with setting the security manager two times to get it removed is intentional; there is a note to that effect at the top of FreeMindSecurityManager class. The key thing is that, after the recent bug fix, the security manager is being removed twice (as it should not): once in the method "evaluate", and once before the line "System.setOut(oldOut)". It seems that it should suffice that the line "securityManager.setFinalSecurityManager(scriptingSecurityManager);" before "System.setOut(oldOut)" is commented out. http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2789907&group_id=7118&atid=107118 Best regards, Dan On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Dan Polansky <dan...@gm...> wrote: > Hello Chris, > > I have had a look at the scripting bug, and have proposed a bug fix, > one that you need to review, though. I have posted the fix to the bug > report: > > Scripts do not work if file operations are not permitted > http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2789907&group_id=7118&atid=107118 > > The last comment to the bug report, for your convenience: > > I get the undesirable behavior described with 0.9.0 RC11 removed by > performing the following change in ScriptingEngine.executeScript method: > > // setting the same security manager the second time causes it to be > // removed. > //securityManager.setFinalSecurityManager(scriptingSecurityManager); // > Commented out. --Dan > securityManager.setFinalSecurityManager(null); // Inserted: be explicit > about setting it to null. --Dan > > At that location, the security manager should be disabled; if it is not, > it causes problems with loading of some classes later. Setting an object > two times to disable something seems like a bug-prone idea. I am setting > the final security manager as null, as that is the intended effect. I am > not the author of the code, so I am not sure whether it matches the > intention. > > As regards the method securityManager.setFinalSecurityManager, I do not > understand why it is implemented the way it is: > > public void setFinalSecurityManager(SecurityManager > pFinalSecurityManager) { > if(pFinalSecurityManager == mFinalSecurityManager) { > mFinalSecurityManager = null; > return; > } > if(mFinalSecurityManager != null) { > throw new SecurityException("There is a SecurityManager installed > already."); > } > mFinalSecurityManager = pFinalSecurityManager; > } > > I would implement the method as follows: > > public void setFinalSecurityManager(SecurityManager pFinalSecurityManager) > { > mFinalSecurityManager = pFinalSecurityManager; > } > > The method should not worry about whether there is already a security > manager set. When the caller wants to get the security manager removed, the > caller should be very explicit about it, by passing "null". > > --Dan > |
From: Dan P. <dan...@gm...> - 2010-11-30 23:24:12
|
Hello Chris, I have had a look at the scripting bug, and have proposed a bug fix, one that you need to review, though. I have posted the fix to the bug report: Scripts do not work if file operations are not permitted http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2789907&group_id=7118&atid=107118 The last comment to the bug report, for your convenience: I get the undesirable behavior described with 0.9.0 RC11 removed by performing the following change in ScriptingEngine.executeScript method: // setting the same security manager the second time causes it to be // removed. //securityManager.setFinalSecurityManager(scriptingSecurityManager); // Commented out. --Dan securityManager.setFinalSecurityManager(null); // Inserted: be explicit about setting it to null. --Dan At that location, the security manager should be disabled; if it is not, it causes problems with loading of some classes later. Setting an object two times to disable something seems like a bug-prone idea. I am setting the final security manager as null, as that is the intended effect. I am not the author of the code, so I am not sure whether it matches the intention. As regards the method securityManager.setFinalSecurityManager, I do not understand why it is implemented the way it is: public void setFinalSecurityManager(SecurityManager pFinalSecurityManager) { if(pFinalSecurityManager == mFinalSecurityManager) { mFinalSecurityManager = null; return; } if(mFinalSecurityManager != null) { throw new SecurityException("There is a SecurityManager installed already."); } mFinalSecurityManager = pFinalSecurityManager; } I would implement the method as follows: public void setFinalSecurityManager(SecurityManager pFinalSecurityManager) { mFinalSecurityManager = pFinalSecurityManager; } The method should not worry about whether there is already a security manager set. When the caller wants to get the security manager removed, the caller should be very explicit about it, by passing "null". --Dan |
From: Dan P. <dan...@gm...> - 2010-11-30 21:28:33
|
Hello Chris, I have discovered another regression bug and have posted a bug fix to the bug report: 19. Find next fails to end the search http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3123873&group_id=7118&atid=107118 It is quick to fix and does not require any investigation on your side. Best regards, Dan |
From: Dan P. <dan...@gm...> - 2010-11-30 20:28:03
|
Hello Chris, I have just closed three bugs, out of the five listed in Finishing 0.9.0. Regarding the note conversion and the stack size: Increasing the stack size of a thread to get the thing working makes me really nervous. It seems it would be much better to implement the part that converts notes in Java, and call the Java method from XSLT. If XSLT is not up to the task, it should better get a little help from Java I think. Regarding the bug with scripting, I can still reproduce problems. I have posted a description of the latest behavior to the bug: ------------------------------------ 16. Scripts do not work if file operations are not permitted http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2789907&group_id=7118&atid=107118 In 0.9.0 RC11, an attempt has been made to fix the problem. But the problem persists, albeit in a slightly different form. I have a mind map with a script '="hello"'. When I press Alt + F8 the first time after loading the mind map, the script gets correctly executed: the text of the node with the script gets overwritten with "hello". This is an improvement over 0.9.0 RC10. Then I rewrite the text of the node with "world", to be able to see the effect of the script again. Then I press Alt + F8 again, and the script does nothing; in addition, I see the hourglass cursor signifying waiting, as if the operation were still in progress. When I repeatedly press Alt + F8, I get the same result: nothing happens. Then, I cannot close FreeMind normally and have to end it using the task manager instead, which means something got quite wrong. I emphasize that I am on Windows Vista. ------------------------------------ What do you think causes the problems with scripting? What is the solution that you are trying to implement? Best regards, Dan On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Christian Foltin (GMX) <chr...@gm...> wrote: > Dear Dan, > > recently, I published 0.9.0 RC11. IMHO, it solves every issue from > > http://freemind.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Finishing_0.9.0 > > Regarding the problem you described: the stack size is too small to > let the replacement function work properly (there are too many recursions, > that can't be reduced inside XSLT due to the nature of this language). > So, the map gets converted > correctly, if you start the .bat (this includes -Xss8M) or on a Mac. > Otherwise, it is now opened without conversion, but with a loss of data and > an error message in the status bar. > Can you integrate the stack option into the freemind.c? > > TIA, Chris > > Am 08.11.10 15:52, schrieb Dan Polansky: > > Hello Chris, > > as regards 18. "Conversion from 0.8.0 to 0.9.0 drops indentation in > notes" and the proposed bug fix by adjusting the file > "freemind_version_updater.xslt": > > I have downloaded the XSLT, placed it into freemind.jar, and tested > the result. It seems to do what it should, with one exception. > > What is does correctly: It converts indentation in notes correctly, > and it converts "a b" as "a b" instead of "a b", as it should. > > What is does erroneously: I have a test mind map "Notes and encryption > after conversion", which it fails to load; it gives the exception > "Error while parsing file:java.io.IOException: Stream closed" placed > to a root node. I attach the test mind map "Notes and encryption after > conversion" to this email. In 0.9.0 RC9, the test mind map gets opened > without a failure, albeit with conversion mistakes such as missing > newlines in notes. In 0.9.0 RC10 with the new XSLT, the mind map does > not get opened at all. > > Best regards, > Dan > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The Next 800 Companies to Lead America's Growth: New Video Whitepaper > David G. Thomson, author of the best-selling book "Blueprint to a > Billion" shares his insights and actions to help propel your > business during the next growth cycle. Listen Now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/SAP-dev2dev > > _______________________________________________ > Freemind-developer mailing list > Fre...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > Fre...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer > > |
From: Dan P. <dan...@gm...> - 2010-11-30 20:01:23
|
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 <Er...@la...> 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<dpo...@gm...> 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<dpo...@gm...<mailto:dpo...@gm...>> 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 |
From: Eric L. <Eric@Lavar.de> - 2010-11-30 19:25:58
|
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<dpo...@gm...> 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<dpo...@gm...<mailto:dpo...@gm...>> 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 >>> |
From: Dan P. <dan...@gm...> - 2010-11-30 09:03:34
|
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 <dpo...@gm...> 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 <dpo...@gm... <mailto:dpo...@gm...>> 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 > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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 > > Fre...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > Fre...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer |
From: Dimitry P. <dpo...@gm...> - 2010-11-29 22:11:07
|
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 <dpo...@gm... <mailto:dpo...@gm...>> 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 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > Fre...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer |
From: Dan P. <dan...@gm...> - 2010-11-29 21:54:33
|
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 <dpo...@gm...> 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 > |
From: Christian F. (GMX) <chr...@gm...> - 2010-11-27 12:45:35
|
Dear Dan, recently, I published 0.9.0 RC11. IMHO, it solves every issue from http://freemind.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Finishing_0.9.0 Regarding the problem you described: the stack size is too small to let the replacement function work properly (there are too many recursions, that can't be reduced inside XSLT due to the nature of this language). So, the map gets converted correctly, if you start the .bat (this includes -Xss8M) or on a Mac. Otherwise, it is now opened without conversion, but with a loss of data and an error message in the status bar. Can you integrate the stack option into the freemind.c? TIA, Chris Am 08.11.10 15:52, schrieb Dan Polansky: > Hello Chris, > > as regards 18. "Conversion from 0.8.0 to 0.9.0 drops indentation in > notes" and the proposed bug fix by adjusting the file > "freemind_version_updater.xslt": > > I have downloaded the XSLT, placed it into freemind.jar, and tested > the result. It seems to do what it should, with one exception. > > What is does correctly: It converts indentation in notes correctly, > and it converts "a b" as "a b" instead of "a b", as it should. > > What is does erroneously: I have a test mind map "Notes and encryption > after conversion", which it fails to load; it gives the exception > "Error while parsing file:java.io.IOException: Stream closed" placed > to a root node. I attach the test mind map "Notes and encryption after > conversion" to this email. In 0.9.0 RC9, the test mind map gets opened > without a failure, albeit with conversion mistakes such as missing > newlines in notes. In 0.9.0 RC10 with the new XSLT, the mind map does > not get opened at all. > > Best regards, > Dan > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The Next 800 Companies to Lead America's Growth: New Video Whitepaper > David G. Thomson, author of the best-selling book "Blueprint to a > Billion" shares his insights and actions to help propel your > business during the next growth cycle. Listen Now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/SAP-dev2dev > > > _______________________________________________ > Freemind-developer mailing list > Fre...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer |
From: Dimitry P. <dpo...@gm...> - 2010-11-14 14:34:55
|
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 |
From: Christian F. (GMX) <chr...@gm...> - 2010-11-10 20:40:31
|
Hi, the benefit is that I can use my rare time for finishing only. Best regards, Chris Am 10.11.10 13:22, schrieb Dan Polansky: > Hello Chris, > > okay, that is not so good news. Are there any benefits of waiting with > the merge to MAIN until the finalization of 0.9.0? > > Best regards, > Dan > > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Christian Foltin (GMX) > <chr...@gm...> wrote: >> Hi Dan, >> >> no, this means after the finalization of 0.9.0, I move to main. >> >> Best regards, Chris >> >> Am 09.11.10 10:12, schrieb Dan Polansky: >>> Hello Chris, >>> >>> I am not sure I understand this sentence: "I merge everything to main >>> on 0.9.0 and continue there." >>> >>> Are you saying that you are about to switch development to the MAIN >>> branch soon? I have seen no changes in CVS yet. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Christian Foltin (GMX) >>> <chr...@gm...> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I merge everything to main on 0.9.0 and continue there. >>>> >>>> Regards, Chris >>>> >>>> Am 01.11.10 11:09, schrieb Dan Polansky: >>>>> Hello Chris, >>>>> >>>>> I propose that you move development in CVS to MAIN branch. There is >>>>> really no need to develop in any other branch. >>>>> >>>>> This would simplify hyperlinking to CVS; instead of >>>>> >>>>> http://freemind.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/freemind/freemind/freemind/modes/mindmapmode/?pathrev=fm_060405_integration >>>>> >>>>> I would just write this: >>>>> >>>>> http://freemind.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/freemind/freemind/freemind/modes/mindmapmode/ >>>>> >>>>> It feels rather unnatural to have active development going in any >>>>> other branch than the main one. We then need to explain to new >>>>> developers from which branch they should take the latest code. When >>>>> browsing CVS online, I have to pay more attention to choose the right >>>>> branch. There are several other branches in the CVS that raise >>>>> confusion: fm_090407_refactoring, and fm_041017_base_integration. The >>>>> branch fm_090407_refactoring appears at the top of the listing and >>>>> looks as if it were from 2009 (because its naming fails the naming >>>>> convention), so it appears to be the latest one; I have to keep >>>>> reminding myself that this is not the right branch. Always going for >>>>> MAIN would be the most simple way, and it is also the default option >>>>> chosen by the CVS browsing software for the web, as the assumption is >>>>> that the branch is the MAIN one unless there is some parallel >>>>> development going on that pends merging. >>>>> >>>>> It would be really nice if this were possible. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Dan >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Nokia and AT&T present the 2010 Calling All Innovators-North America contest >>>>> Create new apps& games for the Nokia N8 for consumers in U.S. and Canada >>>>> $10 million total in prizes - $4M cash, 500 devices, nearly $6M in marketing >>>>> Develop with Nokia Qt SDK, Web Runtime, or Java and Publish to Ovi Store >>>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/nokia-dev2dev >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Freemind-developer mailing list >>>>> Fre...@li... >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer >>>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> The Next 800 Companies to Lead America's Growth: New Video Whitepaper >>>> David G. Thomson, author of the best-selling book "Blueprint to a >>>> Billion" shares his insights and actions to help propel your >>>> business during the next growth cycle. Listen Now! >>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SAP-dev2dev >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Freemind-developer mailing list >>>> Fre...@li... >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer >>>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> The Next 800 Companies to Lead America's Growth: New Video Whitepaper >>> David G. Thomson, author of the best-selling book "Blueprint to a >>> Billion" shares his insights and actions to help propel your >>> business during the next growth cycle. Listen Now! >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SAP-dev2dev >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Freemind-developer mailing list >>> Fre...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> The Next 800 Companies to Lead America's Growth: New Video Whitepaper >> David G. Thomson, author of the best-selling book "Blueprint to a >> Billion" shares his insights and actions to help propel your >> business during the next growth cycle. Listen Now! >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/SAP-dev2dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Freemind-developer mailing list >> Fre...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The Next 800 Companies to Lead America's Growth: New Video Whitepaper > David G. Thomson, author of the best-selling book "Blueprint to a > Billion" shares his insights and actions to help propel your > business during the next growth cycle. Listen Now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/SAP-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Freemind-developer mailing list > Fre...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer |