Ted
At 05:00 PM 5/2/2006, 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.
You don't believe that the lGPL provisions apply (or any other
license for that matter)? Does a parcel really NEED to fall under
the terms of 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
