If we use the apache 2.0 license, which is incompatible with the GPL,
wouldn't we then be restricting parcel developers from using the GPL
if they did wish to do so?
Many developers like the "viral" aspect of the GPL because it
requires those who are modifying the code to contribute it back to
that community and I wouldn't want to alienate those developers.
IMHO we should pick the license that restricts the parcel writers
choice of software licenses the least. I'm not a licensing expert so
I don't know what the best solution is but I think that the LGPL or
the Python licenses could work.
-Mikeal
On May 2, 2006, at 5:00 PM, 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
