On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Luke Welling <lwell...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > The questions: > Is my assumption that by default we put everything under GPL2 right? > Are other FS/OSS licences OK to use?
Generally, I think the consensus has been "GPLv2 preferred, but any FLOSS license is probably ok." I know there's more than a few extensions that are Apache or MIT licensed. > How paranoid are we? ie do we make a good faith effort at getting it right, > or do we refer questions to internal counsel for a slower but safer answer? > We just assume good faith :) > In this case my inclination is to licence the whole extension (containing > the external library) as Apache2.0 but I'm happy to defer to normal process > if there is one. > If you can't use an Apache library in a GPL extension, then licensing the whole extension as Apache is probably fine. -Chad _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
