Hello Eric, after reading your arguments I have got some doubts, and I would like to write them here. If you interpretation were right and the complete source code had to be relicensed, we also had to relicense the code of all GPL2+ libraries we use in the project like SimplyHTML. And such libraries usually are developed outside the project. Everyone has a right to relicense them, but if it requires changes in their source code (replace GPL2+ by GPL3+) it is only possible by forking the correspondent projects.
Forking of projects just for changing some comments does not make much sense for me. And for distributions like the Debian it also do not seem to track multiple versions of the source code with the only difference which license is mentioned there. So I am afraid the requirement to relicense the source code can not be satisfied at least in such cases. On the other side I do not see any difference between FreeMind / Freeplane own source code and the source code of other GPL2+ licensed components in sense of the program code districution. Therefore I think that for applying GPL3+ to the whole we do not have to change licenses of the singe source code files, but only the complete license of the distribution / project as a whole. Therefore I think it does make sense to state that Freeplane and FreeMind max distributions are distributed under GPL3+ , and that there is no need to change any source code file to do so. Further I think that it makes sense that Freeplane and FreeMind have the same licensing policy. @Dan: One more note: currently FreeMind core itself links against Apache Commons Lang (http://commons.apache.org/lang/) which is licensed under Apache 2.0 . Freeplane core does the same thing and uses Apache Commons Lang even more than the FreeMind itself. So seen even the minor distributions currently may not use GPL2. Regards, Dimitry > ----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ----- > Von: Eric Lavarde - FreeMind > Gesendet: 02.12.10 09:46 Uhr > An: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: [Freemind-developer] GPL 3+ > > 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
