Hi Dana, On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 03:55:38PM -0500, Dana Walker wrote: > Thus far, Pulp 3 has been operating under the GPLv2 license. Given the > way the GPL defines derivative works, this means that the plugins > should also be licensed as GPLv2. Take a look at this FAQ to further > clarify the current state of things. [0]
To be more precise, Pulp 3 is operating under GPLv2 or later license IIRC. IANAL, but this should allow plugins to be licensed under GPLv3 as well. Without the "or later" clause, GPLv3 and GPLv2 are incompatible, see [0]. > What weâd like to hear is feedback from each of our stakeholders and > community members. Do you have any concerns with this license, or are > you happy with leaving things as is? I am perfectly fine with it (personally, I like GPLv2 only better, but I licensed pulp_cookbook under GPLv2+ as well to keep things simple) [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility _______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
