OK, let's explore moving that to LGPL which I think would be more appropriate for things like that and layers.
Mark On 09/02/16 12:04, John Meinel wrote: > I agree, I was a bit surprised that charmhelpers was AGPL instead of LGPL. > I think it makes sense as you still would contribute back to the layers you > touch, but it doesn't turn your entire charm into GPL. > > John > =-> > > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Mark Shuttleworth <m...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > >> On 09/02/16 09:25, John Meinel wrote: >>> The more edge case is that charmhelpers itself is AGPL, so if your charm >>> imported charmhelpers, then that is more of a grey area. You likely need >> to >>> open source the actual charm, which sets up configuration, etc of the >>> program. However, you still don't have to give out the source to the >>> program you are configuring. >> For stuff that we publish as libraries, we tend to prefer LGPL, which >> doesn't force a license on the end product or codebase. So if we need to >> revisit the charmhelpers license we will do so. >> >> Mark >> >> -- Juju mailing list Juju@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
