Luke Kanies wrote: > On Apr 6, 2009, at 4:37 PM, David Lutterkort wrote: > >>> What do you think? >> I am also much in favor of #2. I can see that relicensing as LGPL >> might >> make some sense. > > That seems to be the majority view so far, but there are still plenty > of concerns about the copyright aspects. > Is this that big of a deal? I scanned several of the projects I have contributed too (Apache, Fedora, JBoss) and they all require copyright assignment. It does not seem to be way off base.
The issue will be, I believe, how Reductive reacts to having the copyright. Some people will be offended by dual licensing, others will be offended by open-core licensing. I dont know that you can please everyone. As long as the actions which Reductive takes are supportive of the community, I think it would be fine. I personally would prefer the LGPL license, but I could see where RL would prefer GPL + copyright assignment. That would protect them the most from a revenue point of view. Anyone know an editor at the Harvard Business Review? It would be great to get the process/thinking pros and cons documented. -- bk --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
