On Jul 20, 2005, at 7:02 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
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).
But we don't host code at the ASF that's under other licenses except
in extreme situations, and I'm not convinced that we're there yet.
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.)
I believe that your only problem with ALv2 are the patent termination
clauses, right?
I have an idea, but need to do a bit of homework - back in a few
hours with it...
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
