> Hi, > I've been going over the Freemail code, and I noticed that some of the > files lack the GPL header they should have. I assume they should have > one since Freemail as a whole is GPL'ed, but I still need your > permission in order to add them, so I made a list of files that you > have touched and that lack the proper header: > > These don't appear to use code from anywhere else, so they should > probably be LGPLv2.1+ like the rest of Freemail: > src/freemail/utils/Logger.java > src/freemail/ServerListener.java > src/freemail/FreemailAccount.java > src/freemail/ServerHandler.java > src/freemail/fcp/ConnectionTerminatedException.java > > These two use code from Freenet that was licenced as GPLv2+, so they > need to inherit that license: > src/freemail/support/io/LineReadingInputStream.java > src/freemail/fcp/FCPFetchException.java > > If you could take the time to send a message to devl at freenetproject.org > stating what license you want to release your changes under that would > be very helpful. > > Martin Nyhus
Hi Martin / All, Apologies for the slight delay in replying - I'm just back from holiday. Absolutely, I'm happy for those files to be marked up as LGPL v2.1+ - I released the whole of Freemail under the LGPL so I'm certain its safe to assume the same applies to those source files, but thanks for asking nonetheless - I understand how thorny these issues can get. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm happy for these files to be released under LGPL v2.1 or later. As for the code from Freenet, at the time they were imported, Freenet was under the LGPL (which was why Freemail was too) - it changed on the 3rd of September 2006 (https://github.com/freenet/fred-official/commit/65e0628e9a9477bd661025dd70bce364486db5b2 - although the commit message here implies that it was GPL before, but I'm not sure what the source for that is). I think it would be very strange to have a couple of files in Freemail released as GPL when the rest is LGPL, and would slightly complicate what license the project as a whole is released under. Given that the rest of Freenet is GPL, the solution I would be inclined towards would be to stay in keeping with Freenet's license and re-license Freemail as GPL - in this case there shouldn't be many original authors to contact. The other option would be to keep the whole lot as LGPL assuming we can clear up the ambiguity of what license the Freenet files were when they were copied in the first place. Any thoughts on this, anyone? Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20110416/1dc8d2cb/attachment.html>
