+1 Ted Leung wrote: > The source code for Chandler is currently licensed under the GPL. This > was done because at some point in the past, we thought that a dual > license strategy similar to that used by MySQL might be a viable model > for the sustainability of the foundation. In today's world, that > doesn't seem to make much sense. There are also some good reasons for > Chandler to move away from GPL licensing > > 1. The GPL viral provisions would force parcel developers to license > their code under the GPL. > 2. We want to reduce the proliferation of licenses used by OSAF > projects. All the rest of our server code is licensed under the Apache > 2.0 license, and some of our other projects are licensed under the MIT > license. > > What do people think about relicensing the Chandler code base under the > Apache 2.0 license? > > Ted > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > > Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list > http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general
