On Saturday 16 Apr 2011 15:04:06 David Baker wrote: > > > Hi, > > I've been going over the Freemail code, and I noticed that some of the > > files lack the GPL header they should have. I assume they should have > > one since Freemail as a whole is GPL'ed, but I still need your > > permission in order to add them, so I made a list of files that you > > have touched and that lack the proper header: > > > > These don't appear to use code from anywhere else, so they should > > probably be LGPLv2.1+ like the rest of Freemail: > > src/freemail/utils/Logger.java > > src/freemail/ServerListener.java > > src/freemail/FreemailAccount.java > > src/freemail/ServerHandler.java > > src/freemail/fcp/ConnectionTerminatedException.java > > > > These two use code from Freenet that was licenced as GPLv2+, so they > > need to inherit that license: > > src/freemail/support/io/LineReadingInputStream.java > > src/freemail/fcp/FCPFetchException.java > > > > If you could take the time to send a message to devl at freenetproject.org > > stating what license you want to release your changes under that would > > be very helpful. > > > > Martin Nyhus > > Hi Martin / All, > > Apologies for the slight delay in replying - I'm just back from holiday. > > Absolutely, I'm happy for those files to be marked up as LGPL v2.1+ - I > released the whole of Freemail under the LGPL so I'm certain its safe to > assume the same applies to those source files, but thanks for asking > nonetheless - I understand how thorny these issues can get. For the avoidance > of doubt, I'm happy for these files to be released under LGPL v2.1 or later. > > As for the code from Freenet, at the time they were imported, Freenet was > under the LGPL (which was why Freemail was too) - it changed on the 3rd of > September 2006 > (https://github.com/freenet/fred-official/commit/65e0628e9a9477bd661025dd70bce364486db5b2 > - although the commit message here implies that it was GPL before, but I'm > not sure what the source for that is). I think it would be very strange to > have a couple of files in Freemail released as GPL when the rest is LGPL, and > would slightly complicate what license the project as a whole is released > under. Given that the rest of Freenet is GPL, the solution I would be > inclined towards would be to stay in keeping with Freenet's license and > re-license Freemail as GPL - in this case there shouldn't be many original > authors to contact. The other option would be to keep the whole lot as LGPL > assuming we can clear up the ambiguity of what license the Freenet files were > when they were copied in the first place. > > Any thoughts on this, anyone?
The link you gave was a 404. I don't remember Freenet being LGPL, but ok. I vote for GPL2+, I'd be happy with anything GPL3 compatible though (GPL2 isn't ASL2 compatible). -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20110416/2ba318f2/attachment.pgp>
