This is an interesting question. I don't think we can in any way force people to adopt some particular license (though since you cannot relicense, I'm not sure how the different viral licenses would work - a GPL plugin for an Apache-based program could certainly not enforce us to obey the GPL).
It might be a good idea to add instructions how to license your code under the ASL to the ContributedPlugins, but we should be careful not to imply that it's the only option. But I think it might be a good idea to encourage people to declare at least some sort of a license. Could please write up something, Jürgen? /Janne On 18 Dec 2009, at 17:17, Juergen Weber wrote: > > While JSPWiki itself is strict that only Apache licensed code is included > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-545) this is different for > Contributed Plugins. > Some plugins are binary only, some contain their source, but almost none > contain any hint of a distribution license. I think this is an > unsatisfactory state of affairs. > > I suggest that there be a hint concerning the licenses at > http://www.jspwiki.org/wiki/ContributedPlugins#section-ContributedPlugins-QuestionsAndTips > > A strict way were to only approve Apache compatible Licenses, this would de > facto force contributors to put their plugins under Apache license and > include source code. This would have the advantage that you could easily > take a plugin into core. > > Or one would ask contributors to explicitly state a License, e.g. > commercial, Apache, ... > > Or one could disable Attachments altogether for the Wiki page and force > contributors to attach their contributions to a JIRA (one for all or a new > one for each attachment) as source code. I believe in the JIRA attachment > form you have to license attachments to Apache. > > What do you think? > Thanks, > Juergen > -- > View this message in context: > http://old.nabble.com/Contributed-Plugins-License-tp26844884p26844884.html > Sent from the JspWiki - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
