Hi,
on the remark from Dimitry that going from GPLv2 to GPLv3 in order to
avoid incompatibility with Apache 2.0, we create an incompatibility with
GPLv2 is a very good remark, which I didn't think about.
See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html
Anyway, I've decided to ask the question and then we'll know...
Eric
On 03/12/10 13:16, Dan Polansky wrote:
Hello Dimitry,
regarding the use of Apache Commons Lang
(http://commons.apache.org/lang/, licensed under Apache 2.0) in
FreeMind core: I did not realize this was the case. On one hand, that
is not so nice: it means that even a minimal distribution of FreeMind
has to make use of GPL V3 present in GPL V2+. OTOH, licensing FreeMind
core under GPL V2+ has still the advantage that anyone can take a
method or a class from the core and use it in a program licensed under
GPL V2, perhaps in a modified form.
Be it as it may, even the use of Apache Commons Lang in FreeMind core
creates no licensing incompatibility as far as I can see, because of
the presence of GPL V3 within GPL V2+.
The migration from GPL V2+ to GPL V3+ would really be just dropping
the "GPL V2" term from the open-ended sum "GPL V2 + GPL V3 + GPL V4 +
...", making it harder to take new changes to the code over to
programs that are licensed only under GPL V2. What has been already
released under GPL V2+ remains so; there is no way one can retract a
license that one has already granted, as far as I know.
On a related note, if you decide to integrate a GPL V3 component into
Freeplane, be aware that you thereby constrain the resulting
combination from GPL V3+ to GPL V3 without the plus, given the
assumption that dynamic linking is permeable to GPL requirements. This
assumption seems to be the position of FSF, but it is ultimately up to
the courts to accept or reject the assuption.
Best regards,
Dan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--- Begin Message ---
Hello,
I have a question for which I couldn't find an answer in the multiple FAQs.
We have a (Java) program under GPLv2+ (aka v2 or later), linking
to/using a GPLv2+ library and an Apache 2 library (both libraries belong
to other projects).
Facts:
- Apache 2 is not compatible with GPLv2
- Apache 2 is compatible with GPLv3
- GPLv2 is not compatible with GPLv3
Questions:
1. is Apache 2 compatible with GPLv2+, as it *implicitly* contains GPLv3?
2. is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2+, as it *implicitly* contains GPLv3?
Or more practically expressed:
1. do we need to *explicitly* re-license our program under GPLv3+ to
make it compatible with Apache 2? - limited effort, relatively OK.
2. if we would do this, would we need also to *explicitly* re-license
all the GPLv2+ libraries we're using (and possibly recursively all
libraries used by these libraries), factually creating a fork of each
library - not really feasible...
I'm assuming that none of the libraries can be considered as a system
library.
Thanks for your help,
Eric Lavarde
--- End Message ---
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What happens now with your Lotus Notes apps - do you make another costly
upgrade, or settle for being marooned without product support? Time to move
off Lotus Notes and onto the cloud with Force.com, apps are easier to build,
use, and manage than apps on traditional platforms. Sign up for the Lotus
Notes Migration Kit to learn more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/salesforce-d2d
_______________________________________________
Freemind-developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer
