> How about we duel-license on everything with BSD and GPL 2 (and > later) ? > By duel-license, I mean when people make modification, > they can pick one license and discard the other one if they want. > > The only exceptions are: > UnitKit is in Apache 2, which is fine since it is pretty independent > from others. > NewsStand is Apache 2, but it may not go into -stable anyway. So it is > fine, too. > PopplerKit is GPL2 as David explained. > Many applications are GPL. > We need to be clear what happens if some codes is moved into > frameworks.
This is the very reason I suggested we aim for modified BSD, or even MIT/X11 where allowable by the author. Those licenses seem to allow us the most flexibility in combining with other code, as we often don't know what code will be useful to extract out and move from applications to frameworks. You mentioned GPL2, but I assume you meant LGPL2, in the above sentence; again, while a decent license, LGPL2 does limit us to what we can combine it with. Unless I'm mistaken, BSD-licensed code could be combined with Apache2, but LGPL2 can't be combined with Apache2. And Apache2 is only one example -- we may be interested in working with code under CDDL, MPL, or other non- LGPL-compatible licenses. Using LGPL in these cases, or even using dual-licensing, could lead to serious confusion or just straight-out inability to do what we want, short of asking the original author for a relicense. So, while we're still early in the project and while we can still track down the original authors, I'd say let's push to get the most permissive licenses we can, in order to give us the most flexibility for the future. J. PS -- IANAL, and am only giving suggestions about interpretation of licenses and code combination based on my admittedly limited understanding. Please correct me if any of my assumptions are wrong. _______________________________________________ Etoile-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-dev
