Thread: [Freemind-developer] GPL 3+
A premier mind-mapping software written in Java
Brought to you by:
christianfoltin,
danielpolansky
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: 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: 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...> - 2010-11-30 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: 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 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. - 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...> - 2010-12-03 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 |