Hi, On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 12:38 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > > The reason nobody answered this question is because we are still > > debating how to accept code that is both GPLv2 and ASLv2 compatible. > > I'm not sure that's the issue exactly - I think it's about dual > licensing.
No it is not. That would create all kinds of trouble for us to track who contributed what under which terms. This really is just about coming up with a simple default contribution policy that is acceptable to all. As Leo explained so graphically people don't want lists of options or difficult decision diagrams. We want to provide a simple contribution policy that gets us in a situation that all contributed code is ASLv2 and GPLv2 compatible by default. Then there is no confusion or need to track things (except of course the FSF/ASF individual/company contribution/disclaimer paperwork). We could do that by asking every contribution to be dual licensed GPL/ASL, but that might be too confusing to some. So I propose we just pick MIT/X for now and be done with it. (Or any other option I mentioned in a couple of mails if you really don't like MIT/X.) Cheers, Mark
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
