Hi Dana, I would like to clarify under which license terms pulp plugins \ derivative work are eligible to be published. IANAL. As far as I know GPL (any version) requires that all derivative work must be published under the same terms of GPL license.
Therefore as a plugin author I cannot release pulp plugin under terms of any other more permissive license than the GPL (e.g. MIT, BSD, Apache licenses). Another example. If Galaxy project released under terms of Apache 2.0 license wants to use pulp as a direct dependency, meaning subclassing *pulpcore* or *pulpcore-plugin* classes, it creates GPL license violation due to GPL license requirement to be licensed under GPL for all covered (derivative) work. OLEKSANDR SAPRYKIN SENIOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com/> <https://red.ht/sig> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 9:56 PM Dana Walker <dawal...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hello everyone! > > 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] > > What we’d 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? > > Looking forward, are there any compelling reasons to consider alternatives > at this pivotal time in our community’s growth? Let us know! > > [0] https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Pulp3_Licensing_FAQ > > Thanks, > > --Dana > > Dana Walker > > Associate Software Engineer > > Red Hat > > <https://www.redhat.com> > <https://red.ht/sig> > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
