Hi,
Brian Kirsch wrote:
Is there a write up anywhere on our licensing requirements for 3rd
party API's? There are a number of libraries I am evaluating for the
Mail Service and licensing will certainly play a role in whether or
not they are used in Chandler. Can other licenses (GPL, MIT, etc) be
used in conjunction with the Apache license?
I had this discussion with Ted and Xun over the summer. Summary: it's
hard to make a blanket statement, no matter what "umbrella" the license
claims, there's no shortcut to reading the license agreement provided
with the code. I know: that's precisely what you wanted to avoid...
As a general set of rules of thumb (note, these *are not* legal
guidelines), we sort of agree on the following:
1. Apache License: OK, of course
2. GPL: not OK because GPL will require Chandler to be GPL.
3. LGPL: OK as long as it does not require license compliance of
Chandler. Also check with the owner of the code directly when using
Python libraries licensed under the LGPL: since Python is not
"compiled", the boilerplate terms of the license are ambiguous.
4. BSD License: OK but read carefully
5. MIT License: OK but read carefully
Again, not a set of policies, just rules of thumb: there are just too
many variations out there to use hard fast rules.
Cheers,
- Philippe
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
