Licensing
FreeMind is licensed under GNU GPL V2+.
Licensing of components
The use and distribution of libraries by FreeMind raises two issues:
1. distribution of open-source libraries: depending on the license used, we would need to make the source code available. This could be done IMHO (Eric L.) simply by putting a copy of the sources in SF's download section (without making those an integral part of our packages).
2. usage of GPL-incompatible libraries: believing this FSF note, we can make sure that FreeMind can use GPL-incompatible libraries but we need to make it explicit in our copyright. I (Eric L. 05:56, 24 Mar 2008 (PDT))suggest to ask the current and former copyright holder and add a note in each source file that there is an exception on GPL-incompatible libraries, and explicit this exception in the "license" file.
| Component | License | Link | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| SimplyHTML | GPL | Version of license? | |
| Batik | Apache | Problem? | |
| NanoXML | zlib/libpng | [1] | |
| JiBX | BSD, Apache | [2] | Problem? |
| JavaHelp | GNU GPL V2 | [3] |
Projects bundling Java
| Project | License | Link | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| StopMojo | GPL plus a special statement giving blanket permission to link with non-free software. | [4] | |
| TIFFANY'S | GPL; not given at the web site; only at the SourceForge project page | [5] |
Discussion threads
| Thread | Channel | Started on | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Licensing problems | Complaints from users | 15.1.2008 | Contains open issues. |
| Licensing problems | freemind-developer | 15.1.2008 | Possible open issues. |
Offending files
At least at some point, some single files had a license incompatible with GNU GPL V2+. These were:
| File | Note |
|---|---|
| accessories/marktree.js | Mozilla Public License 1.1, incompatible with GPLv2+, see note 1 |
| accessories/mm2oowriter.xsl | fixed by Chris (he's the author, he can this) |
| accessories/tohtml.xsl | Mozilla Public License 1.1, incompatible with GPLv2+, see note 1 |
| accessories/toxhtml.xsl. | Mozilla Public License 1.1, incompatible with GPLv2+, see note 1 |
- Note 1
- the files implicated seem to come from mmTree where the original Author keeps very similar versions under MIT license, which would be compatible with GPLv2+. Eric L. 10:08, 22 Mar 2008 (PDT) ⇒ Asking the author Miika Nurminen for his OK to place the files in our CVS under MIT license as well (else we'll have to derive a new version from his files). Eric L. Miika answered and is OK to have all files under MIT license, once it's properly modified in the CVS, we'll be fine.
Copyright notice in code
A source file may be viewed as a sum b + d1 + d2 + ... + dk, where b is the basis, di are deltas (or patches), and the plus operator is the operator of applying a patch. The basis and each delta have their own copyright holder and the year of copyright.
If there is only one author and one year, then the copyright notice is simple.
If there is only one author and more years, then the copyright notice may look like
Copyright © 2003-2005 Big Author
which is to be understood as
Some parts of the sum are copyrighted in 2003, some perhaps in 2004, and some certainly in 2005.
If there are more authors, then the copyright notice consists of more lines, like
Copyright © 2003-2005 Big Author, Copyright © 2005 Captain,
Not all changes are eligible for copyright. If a change is small, then it does not make sense to add a line to the copyright notice for it.
Copyright notice is not required for copyright to hold. It makes claiming your right at court easier.
The correctness of these instructions is not granted. They are subject to improvement as we see fit.
--Danielpolansky 11:29, 3 Jun 2005 (PDT)
Where to ask
| Place | Note |
|---|---|
| gnu.org | |
| groklaw.net | GPL Resources |
See also
Links
- GNU General Public License - gnu.org and the License compatibility list.
- Why GPL V3 - gnu.org
- Free and Open Source Java - sun.com
- the Fedora licenses list with GPL2 compatibility list.
