On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Luke Kanies <l...@madstop.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I fear this discussion will quickly devolve into a recursive flame- > fest, but it needs to be broached, so here we go. Note that I kind of > think this is more of dev topic than users, but I want to make sure > everyone knows the conversation is happening and can easily > participate. This is also likely to be the first of a series of > conversations I'll be starting to try to paper over the lack of > organization and process we've had in the past. >
Hi I am cutting down a lot of stuff to try and put my comments into a concise format: > 1) Should we use a completely open Apache-style license, or a > reciprocal/viral GPL-style license? > 2) Should we require copyright assignment of any kind? > > Going with those questions, we have two priorities: > > 1) Maximize ability to grow and sustain a community > 2) Enable Reductive Labs to increase its funding of development > > Fundamentally, I see three basic choices: > > 1) Leave them like they are. No copyright assignment, no real > copyright maintenance, GPL2 or later. This means that every > contributor ever must give permission for things like license changes, > we can't easily protect against license infringement > (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html > ), no one can ever dual license, and essentially no commercial > software can ever be produced that integrates with Puppet. > > 2) Stick to a viral/reciprocal license (probably AGPLv3) but require > Sun-style copyright contribution (which provides the project a non- > exclusive license to the copyright). This provides a single > organization with a license for all copyright, and allows that license > holder (Reductive Labs) to protect against license infringement, > provide patent indemnity (which I've already been asked about by > others but cannot currently offer), relicense Puppet (and produce > commercial software that integrates with that relicensed product), > and probably more. > > 3) Switch to a non-reciprocal license (e.g., Apache) and don't require > copyright coassignment. This allows anyone to do anything with the > code, so there's no real concern about license infringement and anyone > can make commercial add-ons. This is both good and bad, though, in > that even those with no commitment to Puppet's community could build > commercial products on it, which I think is not so great. OK with any licensing issue.. you need to have a lawyer's advice on things :/. They will be able to give the best advice on whether a re licensing can be done and what the best ways of doing so will be. The method I have seen for anyone changing from 1 to 2/3 is that they either required everyone to sign on the commit list or rewrite from scratch and get FSF/Sun style copyright contributions going (or some combination of the two.) > After spending the last month thinking about it, and talking with many > people (e.g., Tarus Balog, Matt Asay, Marten Mickos, Mark Radcliffe, > and many more), I think #2 is the best option. It provides the best > combination of openness for the community and opportunity for > Reductive Labs. It hurts to say this, because I've always thought > copyright assignment was evil, but I've been convinced otherwise, > mostly by the links above and conversation with Tarus of OpenNMS. > > The problem I have with #1 is that is explicitly limits Puppet's > ability to integrate with other commercial software, which I think is > unfortunate and makes it hard to build Puppet into an ecosystem, > rather than just being a stand-alone tool. The problem I have with #3 > is that I have a hard time seeing how Reductive Labs can add more > programmers to the project with it. > > What do you think? The one other issue you will need to do is craft what the license you use to sell for people to incorporate puppet into a non-GPL product. I believe a couple of companies have been screwed by selling a version to some company under a 'closed' license and then seeing that the other company uses that code to compete against the first company. Again get a software lawyer well versed in contract law to draft an appropriate one where A) they can't take improvements from the GPL version and pull it into their license, and B) product improvements that are made for them can be 'Freed' at some definite point in the future (as in now to 6 months from the date they are made.). -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
