1 Topic by leithoff (edited by leithoff 2012-03-27 04:28:07)

  • leithoff
  • Member
  • Offline

Topic: License question, Dual Licensing LGPL 2.1 and LGPL 3

This belongs probably to:
PHP Labware forum → htmLawed → License question
(Where I found a previous discussion on the topic)

Hi,
while searching some alternative for the use of tidy class I found htmLawed.
Why using htmLawed instead of tidy:
- I would like to have a fallback when php tidy is not available
- I need tidy/balanced html tags in HTML when processing user HTML Mails
- I tried HTMLPurifier with adapted configuration but for some input it fails completely to do a propper tidying job, and we ran into runtime problems when trying to purify large html snippets that use tables heavily to structure the content.

Additionally I am trying to evaluate the replacement of HTMLPurifier with htmLawed alltogether, as purifier is quite big and uses a lot of resources, and has some issues that needed patching.

I am one of the developers of the EGroupware project and currently maintaining the mail module that ships with it.
See: egroupware.org or egroupware.org/community_edition or sourceforge.net/projects/egroupware/

As EGroupware is Licensed with GPL v2 (which seems to be incompatible with LGPL v3 as it is stated by
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses ).
We would like to ask if it was acceptable to you to have htmlLawed additionaly licensed under LGPL v2.1
(as this version is stated to be compatible with GPL v2 Licensing).
For some historical reasons its quite hard to change the licensing of the EGroupware to GPL v3 or even to a dual Licensing like GPL v2 and newer, as this would require the approval of all EGroupware developers to take this measure.

Best regards
Leithoff, Klaus

2 Reply by patnaik

  • patnaik
  • Administrator
  • Offline

Re: License question, Dual Licensing LGPL 2.1 and LGPL 3

Though I have a reasonable understanding of the GPL/LGPL licenses, I don't think I am aware of their various nuances and how they might affect htmLawed development. Let me check on this for a day or two.

Do you think dual licensing under LGPL2.1 and LGPL3 is better than changing the license from LGPL3 to LGPL2.1?

3 Reply by leithoff

  • leithoff
  • Member
  • Offline

Re: License question, Dual Licensing LGPL 2.1 and LGPL 3

I only know about the stuff thats written in gnu.org about licensing:
LGPL2.1
This is the previous version of the LGPL: a free software license, but not a strong copyleft license, because it permits linking with non-free modules. It is compatible with GPLv2 and GPLv3. We generally recommend the latest version of the LGPL, for special circumstances only. To learn more about how LGPLv2.1 is compatible with other GNU licenses, please see our FAQ.

Our Head developer Ralf Becker suggested the dual Licensing in case you had reasons for Licensing htmLawed as LGPL3.

If I check with gnu.org and have a look at the compatibility matrix:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
I would go for dual Licensing as it allows for best compatibility Licensewise.

But check with care, and decide what you want to achieve. I think that the gnu faq gives some help, if you are clear about your own goals. As you decided for LGPL one of your goals (or accepted side effects) seems to be a wide spread usage of htmLawed.
Development of htmLawed may be unaffected by the decision for wathever you may decide.

4 Reply by patnaik

  • patnaik
  • Administrator
  • Offline

Re: License question, Dual Licensing LGPL 2.1 and LGPL 3

I think I see the downside of having the LGPLv3 license for htmLawed. I am now considering these two options both of which should suit your need:

(1) change the license from LGPLv3 to 'LGPLv2.1 or later'
(2) dual-license with LGPLv3 and 'GPLv2 or later'

5 Reply by leithoff

  • leithoff
  • Member
  • Offline

Re: License question, Dual Licensing LGPL 2.1 and LGPL 3

Yes, both would suit our needs.
Please let me know here when you settled for either option.
Thanks a lot.

6 Reply by patnaik

  • patnaik
  • Administrator
  • Offline

Re: License question, Dual Licensing LGPL 2.1 and LGPL 3

I have decided that dual-licensing with LGPLv3 and 'GPLv2 or later' will be best.

I am not sure if I have to have a new htmLawed release to bring this license change into effect. Any thought? Thanks.

7 Reply by leithoff

  • leithoff
  • Member
  • Offline

Re: License question, Dual Licensing LGPL 2.1 and LGPL 3

(Sorry, missed that one.)

No, I guess a formal release will not be needed as of now.
It should be stated online with the readme, for anyone to see.
http://www.bioinformatics.org/phplabware/internal_utilities/htmLawed/htmLawed_README.htm
(Probably with a Datestamp for the change, like:
License: LGPLv3 and 'GPLv2 or later'  as of 2012-03-30
)
For us, we can always refer to this official source of the projects home page.
It should, however, be announced with(in) the next release.
Best regards and thanks a lot for providing this fine piece of software and helping us with the license issue

8 Reply by patnaik

  • patnaik
  • Administrator
  • Offline

Re: License question, Dual Licensing LGPL 2.1 and LGPL 3

Thanks for the suggestions. With effect from 5 April 2012, htmLawed is licensed under LGPL3 and GPL2+ (i.e., version 2 or later). I have updated various online web-pages on the htmLawed site, and the htmLawed files to put in the license change.