I think we should relicense the Chandler code base under the Apache 2.0
license, for the reasons Ted mentions:
+ We don't expect revenue from licensing the desktop code.
+ We'd like to be developer friendly and promote wider adoption,
reducing restrictions to using the code.
+ I'd like to see us move to using one license (if possible) for all of
the projects, to reduce overhead.
At a practical level, the main downside I see in moving away from GPL
licensing is if there is some GPL'd code from other projects that we'd
like to use. Do we have any cases of this now, or forsee this happening
in the near future?
Which projects are currently licensed under the MIT license? Should we
consider licensing them under the Apache 2.0 license as well?
Cheers,
Katie
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
