On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 16:57:12 +0100 David Baker wrote: > 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. > > > > 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.
I'm fine with GPL2+ as well. Based on a quick look at Git that leaves alexlehm, esr and Daniel Cheng. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20110416/a7275362/attachment.pgp>
