On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:33:00 +0200 Alexander Lehmann wrote: > you can put the Logger class under the same license as the rest of > Freemail (i.e. lgpl 2.1+), I think I intended to do that or have Dave do > it, but since I stopped working on Freemail a while back due to time > constraints, I never actually did. > > I looked up the commit log messages, I believe I didn't use any code > (except the api from freenet Logger, but that isn't used directly either)
Great! How do you feel about the re-licensing to GPLv2 or later that Dave suggested? I think you have gotten the email already, but I've included it below just in case: 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? Dave
