On May 17, 2006, at 4:47 PM, Katie Capps Parlante wrote:

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.

Ok, so I am seeing (with the exception of Reid) general agreement among the project committers on relicensing Chandler under the Apache 2 license, so that is the direction that we are going to go unless some other committers start vigorously objecting. I appreciate the contributions of others on the list, but in the end, it's the project committers that get to make the call here.


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?

According to <http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Projects/ ThirdPartyLicensesInChandler>, we have no GPL'ed code in Chandler now. The closest that we come is wxWidgets which is LGPL'ed, and BerkeleyDB, which requires that we distribute the source of Chandler, which we do.


Which projects are currently licensed under the MIT license? Should we consider licensing them under the Apache 2.0 license as well?

pyLucene, pyICU, and Zanshin are licensed under the MIT License, and vobject is licensed under Apache 1.1

I'm less worried about the licensing of pyLucene and pyICU, since they are mostly wrappers, and I am unconcerned about the patent protection clauses for zanshin and vObject. Relicensing to Apache 2.0 makes sense from a consistency point of view. I'd point out that Jeffrey has the final say on the vobject license, as he's the primary author.

Ted


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general

Reply via email to