On 17 Sep 2007, at 21:21, Jesse Ross wrote: Sounds like a good idea.
> All new code should be under a BSD or more permissive license (X11/ > MIT, public domain...). Agreed. I wouldn't mind extending this to include LGPL if other people felt strongly. > All existing code should be attempted to be relicensed to BSD or more > permissive, with the author's permission. I'll leave this for people who have put non-BSD/MITL code in the tree to decide. > Any new contributions to existing projects should be under the same > license as the project, or a more permissive license. Definitely agreed. As the recent spat over the OpenBSD Atheros driver has shown, it's not polite to make modifications to code that the upstream project can't use, and no one likes people who do. > Any ports or forks from existing work should be under the license of > the original project, and should not be GPL if there is a more > permissively-licensed alternative. Agreed, although I have no problem with adding code under a more permissive license to forks of other projects (e.g. adding MITL or PD code to a BSDL project). I think the only big GPL'd thing we have in the tree is PopplerKit (based on Poppler, which is based on xpdf, which is GPL'd). The only BSDL PDF framework I've found was written in Java, so that probably has to stay and we have to be careful what links to it. I don't suppose anyone feels like doing a full check of the tree? David _______________________________________________ Etoile-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-dev
