Ted Leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... Greetings All,
I hope that the OSAF chooses to stay GPL-friendly. Perhaps I can help this happen by explaining a few key points. > 1. The GPL viral provisions would force parcel developers to license their > code under the GPL. I fear that I do not know how parcels fit into Chandler. Even if we assume that parcels clearly form a derivative work with Chandler, developers are not forced to GPL-license their works. Instead, in this case, the package could only be distributed under a GPL-compatible license, such as the GPL, New BSD license, X11 license and so on. > 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. This is a sensible goal. Unfortunately, due to the useful anti-patent clauses in version 2.0 of the Apache License, it is not compatible with version 2.0 of the GPL. However, the MIT license is GPL v2.0-compatible. Additionally, I believe that version 3.0 of the GPL will be compatible with version 2.0 of the Apache License. > [Various large amounts of supposing about the GPL, the FSF and copyright law] Don't write too many words into the FSF's metaphorical mouth. Check the http://fsf.org/ to see exactly what beliefs are held as an organization - if you talk to individual FSF people about these issues you will get at least one set of opinions per person. Additionally, consider who controls the rights to a copyrighted work: the copyright holder, which - only in some cases - is the FSF. > I would like parcel writers to have their choice of licenses. If Chandler > is GPL'ed, then my understanding of the GPL is that parcels would have to be > GPL'ed. It is very easy to ensure that parcel writers have a choice of license - simply add an exception to your instance of the GPL. See the following entry in the GPL FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs If you need a hand here, I would be happy to help you write one. Other options to consider are multi-licensing a la Perl or Mozilla. This strategy allows you to serve a broad range of communities and is a fair compromise for developers. Cheers! -- Zak Greant Full disclosure: I volunteer for the Free Software Foundation on various licensing matter. My opinions in this email reflect a desire to work in the best interests of the FSF and Free Software community and may not reflect my personal opinions. For more information on my various affiliations and such, please see http://zak.greant.com/affiliations/ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general
