Hello Eric, Re "2. is it OK to keep GPLv2+ with Apache 2.0 because anyone can upgrade to GPLv3, which is compatible? -> I answer no...":
FreeMind is not "keeping GPLV2+ with Apache 2.0". What FreeMind does is that it licenses each of its source files under GPL V2+. That alone does not present any licensing problem. When FreeMind source code (GPL V2+) is combined with plugins licensed under Apache 2.0, the result is non-infringing because FreeMind source code is licensed under GPL V3+ by containment in GPL V2+. Those users who want to compile FreeMind without the plugins can still take advantage of the licensing part that is GPL V2 (GPL V2+ = GPLV2 + GPL V3+). Re "... I answer no because it would be like someone in the train having his unstamped ticket and telling the train supervisor that he was about to stamp it.": I do not see that this analogy is correct. There is no analogue of unstamped ticket in source code; there is no act of stamping that turns unstamped source code into stamped source code. By being licensed under GPL V2+, FreeMind source code is licensed under multiple licenses. In a ticket analogy, it would be like someone in the train having both a ticket for a tram and for the train, both stamped. A person is allowed to carry a tram ticket (GPL V2) as long as he also has the right train ticket (GPL V3+). Best regards, Dan On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Eric Lavarde <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > honestly, we can probably discuss ages about licensing and what makes > sense or not, I think, none of the FAQs cited really answers the > questions we have, which are: > > 1. does GPL apply to dynamic linking -> yes, it applies, else the LGPL > wouldn't be needed for Java - see > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html, C/C++ also knows dynamic > linking and it applies there. > > 2. is it OK to keep GPLv2+ with Apache 2.0 because anyone can upgrade to > GPLv3, which is compatible? -> I answer no because it would be like > someone in the train having his unstamped ticket and telling the train > supervisor that he was about to stamp it. > > At the end, as explained to me by a friend judge, you can get all kind > of more or less robust legal advice, it's always a jury which decides > what's correct, so it's only about limiting risk. > It's a bit of effort to upgrade from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+ but what should be > the real drawback? And we're then on the safe side. > > Anyway, Dimitry's communication was mostly out of politeness, to keep > you informed about what we're doing with what is still partly your code. > You don't need to follow us. > > Hope this clarifies the situation. > > Eric > > > On 30/11/10 10:03, Dan Polansky wrote: >> Hello Dimitry, >> >> the hyperlinks that you have posted do not seem to speak of FreeMind >> licensing situation. >> >> The links posted by you: >> >> 1. Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a >> GPL-covered plug-in? >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins >> Note: FreeMind is not a non-free program that is designed to load a >> GPL-covered plugin. >> >> 2. Can I write free software that uses non-free libraries? >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs >> Note: FreeMind is not free software that uses non-free libraries. >> >> The question from GNU FAQ that does seem to cover FreeMind situation is this: >> >> 3. What legal issues come up if I use GPL-incompatible libraries with >> GPL software? >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs >> Note: FreeMind does link to libraries that are incompatible with GPL >> V2, yet compatible with GPL V3. >> >> Let us, for the purpose of the following argument, pessimistically >> assume that dynamic linking is permeable to GPL requirements. Under >> this assumption, what I have written about plugins still holds true: >> >> A person who compiles FreeMind without plugins can take advantage of >> GPL V2 license, which is part of GPL V2+. >> >> The standardly distributed maximum version of FreeMind in effect makes >> use of GPL V3 license, which is part of GPL V2+. >> >> Thus, I currently see no licensing problem in FreeMind that would >> require change from GPL V2+ to GPL V3+. >> >> Best regards, >> Dan >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Dimitry Polivaev<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hello Dan, >>> >>> look here: >>> >>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins >>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Dimitry >>> >>>> Hello Dimitry >>>> >>>> is this a good idea? FreeMind can be compiled also without being >>>> dynamically linked to the libraries >>>> licensed under Apache 2.0. FreeMind max version relies on GPL V2+ >>>> containing GPL V3. The source code >>>> of FreeMind itself can still be licensed also under GPL V2 apart from >>>> being licensed under GPL V3+ >>>> without violating any license (GPL V2+ = GPL V2 plus GPL V3+). I am also >>>> not clear about whether >>>> dynamic linking in Java is permeable to GPL requirements. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Dimitry >>>> Polivaev<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> because Freeplane plug-ins and the distribution depends on some >>>> libraries licensed under Apache 2.0 >>>> and GPL 3, we are going to change the project license to "GPL version >>>> 3 or later". Because the same >>>> basically apply to FreeMind too, I write to the FreeMind list before >>>> actual implementing the >>>> changes. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Dimitry ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App & Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base & get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Freemind-developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer
