On 16 Apr 2011, at 16:52, Matthew Toseland wrote: > 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.
Hmm - odd. The link works for me. Was it definitely a 404? I was having issues with Github whilst looking for that but it was giving me 500s. > > I don't remember Freenet being LGPL, but ok. I'm not sure what the deal was but the LICENSE.Freenet file (as it was) was a copy of the LGPL at that point and was changed in that Git commit. > > I vote for GPL2+, I'd be happy with anything GPL3 compatible though (GPL2 > isn't ASL2 compatible). Okay, will see what Martin / others think but that sounds fair to me. Dave
