Hi Dan, I can agree that your interpretation might be right: as said, only a judgment could finally decide (and hopefully we'll never have to find out).
One last note though, without tentative to convince you: you seem to assume that GPLv2+ means GPLv2 + GPLv3 + ... + GPLvInfinity, I think that it means only GPLv2 with the possibility to relicense under GPLv3 or ... or GPLvInfinity (the text says "you can *redistribute* it [under] any later version", not that the code is also under any later version). i.e. for me releasing the program in a specific version (with source code and GPLv2+ text) with Apache 2.0 linkages is like taking the tram in zone 3 with a stamped zone 2 ticket and an unstamped zone 3 ticket; it is not allowed. You would need to go out of the tram, stamp your zone 3 ticket (relicense your code) and go back in the tram (release new version). But I admit that I might be wrong, and your position correct. As also already said it's all a question of risk mitigation. Eric Dan Polansky said: > 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]> >>> Â 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]>> Â wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Â Â Â Hello, >>>>> >>>>> Â Â Â because Freeplane plug-ins and the distribution depends on >>>>> some libraries licensed under Apache 2.0 >>>>> Â Â Â and GPL 3, we are going to change the project license to "GPL >>>>> version 3 or later". Because the same >>>>> Â Â Â basically apply to FreeMind too, I write to the FreeMind list >>>>> before actual implementing the >>>>> Â Â Â changes. >>>>> >>>>> Â Â Â Kind regards, >>>>> Â Â Â Dimitry -- Eric de France, d'Allemagne et de Navarre ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
