So REALLY? No public comment on this license change from anybody within the Tizen project?
The licensing of a major component of the OS is changed to a non-OSI compliant license with no forewarning, no discussion, and then there is no reply when this change is raised on the general mailing list? Reverting to a license which is KNOWN problematic to the open source community, and which there was significant controversy over in the past? For shame. On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Bob Summerwill <b...@summerwill.net> wrote: > No comment, eh? > On Sep 13, 2015 11:23 PM, "Bob Summerwill" <b...@summerwill.net> wrote: > >> The release notes for Tizen SDK 2.3.1 include a one-liner stating that >> the Web framework for Tizen (TAU) has switched from MIT to Flora. >> >> Please could I ask why? That appears to me to be a very retrograde step >> with regard to licensing. >> >> There was a lot of controversy around Tizen licensing around Tizen 2.0 >> which appeared to be 'fixed' with Apache dual-licensing being introduced >> for nearly everything which was previously only Flora. >> >> To see the main JS framework flip from MIT to Flora with no prior warning >> is troubling. Flora is not an OSI-approved license, meaning TAU can no >> longer be considered open source. That is a big deal. >> >> Why the change? Thanks. >> > -- b...@summerwill.net
_______________________________________________ General mailing list General@lists.tizen.org https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/general
