Licensing Guidelines for apps we write

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On 07/01/2009 09:37 PM, Nigel Jones wrote:
> 
> ----- "Toshio Kuratomi" <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi, I've had a chance to talk to spot and I've drafted the following
>> policy about licensing the things that we write in Fedora
>> Infrastructure:
>>
>>   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Licensing
>>
>> Do people like it?  Is a GPL family license pretty much everywhere
>> good
>> for everyone or are there places that we'd like the general rule to
>> be
>> "MIT" or something looser instead?
>>
>> I want to relicense python-fedora (GPLv2 => LGPLv2+), pkgdb and fas
>> (GPLv2 => AGPLv3+) if we approve this.  I'll talk to the contributors
>> to
>> those projects to make sure they have no objections first, but is
>> that
>> generally acceptable?  Anyone else want to join in on the
>> relicensing?
>> Having things under compatible licenses will make code sharing
>> possible.
>> (GPLv2 only is not compatible with AGPLv3+) which is my incentive for
>> migrating apps that I'm contributing to onto a common licensing
>> scheme.
>>
>> I'm putting this on the meeting agenda for Thursday but discussion in
>> the mailing list is also welcome.
> 
> I definitely won't be at the meeting tomorrow, but yes, this is something that must be done, +1 from me.
> 
> I guess to fit in, we should do the some for the voting app.
> 
<nod>  That would be ideal.  Relicensing all of our GPLv2-only apps to
reflect these Guidelines would be good.  Mirrormanager is MIT licensed
and that doesn't need to be relicensed to fit in as MIT is compatible
with all of the GPL family of licenses.

-Toshio

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-infrastructure-list/attachments/20090701/fd84acb2/attachment.sig>