|
From: Eric L. - F. <fre...@zo...> - 2008-09-24 11:09:48
|
Hi Dimitri, sorry, I had taken your proposal as a formatting glitch (no, I don't know by heart the exact text ;-) ). Dimitri Polivaev said: > Hi Eric, >> BTW: Dimitry, if you could document your agreement directly in the >> patch, >> it would make tracking (and proving) easier. > > 1. I wanted to discuss it first as I proposed a small correction to your > text: > >> In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders of >> FreeMind give you permission to combine FreeMind with free software >> programs or libraries that are released under an open source license >> > > satisfying the open source definition given by the OSI > and approved by the OSI, Sorry to argue, but if it's approved by the OSI, it must satisfy the open source definition, so it's redundant, no? And I'd like to keep the whole thing as short and simple as possible. Nevertheless, we could put "approved by the OSI through its License Review Process" (see http://www.opensource.org/approval) if you fear some loophole. Note: I didn't put on purpose any "deep link" in the verbiage to avoid any issue with changing links (assuming the OSI site will remain where it is). > > 2. Another point: is it correct that programs with the proposed extension > are not allowed to link with parts without such extension? I am afraid > SimplyHTML and the latex plug-in have still unextended GPL V2+ . What > about them? I argue that it's not an issue because the new license would allow anybody to take the whole code and release it under "pure" GPLv2 or 3+ (the latex lib is GPLv3, AFAIR). Eric > > Dimitry > -- Eric de France, d'Allemagne et de Navarre |
