Hey Kevin, When you write a charm and include a copyright file, what you are licensing are the lines of code that you write in the charm, not the software itself. You may choose any license you want.
If you want to specify the license each piece of software uses, you can do so in the README file, so users know what license each piece holds. -- José Antonio Rey On Tue, Oct 27, 2015, 12:01 Kevin Monroe <kevin.mon...@canonical.com> wrote: > Hi folks, > > Our big data charms (apache licensed) deploy Hadoop (apache licensed). > Hadoop supports various compression codecs, with one of the more popular > being lzo. lzo is GPLv2 licensed and therefore not distributed with Hadoop. > > As a charm author, what is my licensing obligation if I want my charm to > install lzo on top of Hadoop? Fwiw, the charm would fetch both hadoop.tgz > and lzo.tgz from an external repo at install-time, so neither payload is > bundled into the charm. I assume this absolves me of any special licensing > in my charm source, but I'd like to get a +1 on that. > > As the maintainer of an external repo, are there licensing obligations for > hosting charm payloads? I assume I could put a NOTICE in the root of the > repo that says "hadoop.tgz is apache licensed (link to license). lzo.tgz > is gplv2 (link to source and license)." > > The sticky part to me is that no one would likely find my NOTICE in the > repo, so I'm curious if I should put it directly in the charm source. Is > anyone else dealing with charm payloads of differing licenses? How did you > handle it? > > Thanks, > -Kevin Monroe > -- > Juju mailing list > Juju@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju >
-- Juju mailing list Juju@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
