On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:11:19AM -0700, David Lutterkort wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 10:08 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > Well the obvious impact is prevention of its use in GPLv2 only programs, > > and any (L)GPLv2+ programs which use it, result in a LGPLv3+ combined > > work. Personally I take a conservative view & prefer to keep things > > (L)GPLv2+ licensed. Though clearly in a year or two there'll be a tipping > > point where too many useful libs are v3+ and it thus ceases to be pratical > > to care about v2 compatability. We're not there yet though > > Yeah, that's the biggest concern; the main issue though is that reliable > licensing information is almost impossible to come by in bulk. > > > The question is how many of these would be interested in Augeus ? The > > most likely candidates are KDE, Java, HAL and Ruby since they're general > > purpose libs/apps sitting as a foundation for many other apps > > The RPM licensing information is seriously unreliable; just > spot-checking two off your list, the Ruby license is compatible to the > GPL (both versions) and enscript is actually GPLv2+.
File bugs ! It was supposed to have been cleaned up by maintainers ;-) > This whole licensing business is an insane mess ... Yeah, that's why I suggest to play it safe and stay LGPLv2+ in the short to medium term, to maximise compatability with apps wanting to use augeas. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| _______________________________________________ augeas-devel mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/augeas-devel
