Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2009-08-31 at 13:23 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
Richard looked at the license-specific version, made some suggestions,
then asked if there is a reason for being GPLv2 only as a project and
codebase.  For example, many projects are licensed "GPLv2 or later",
yet there was some confusion around the time that GPLv3 came out if
that was advisable.  Is this project GPLv2-specific on purpose?


No there isn't a specific reason IPA is GPLv2 Only, at the time when we
started I actually proposed to use the brand new GPLv3 or later diction,
but legal was not yet comfortable with GPLv3 so we went the default RH
license at the time which was GPLv2 only.

I would actually like to move to GPLv2 or later or even GPLv3 or later
if our external code dependencies allows it without trouble.

I think the only code that we may not be able to move to GPLv3 is the
directory server plugins as DS is GPLv2+exceptions, but I have no
problem in clearly spelling out that plugins have a different license
because of their dependency and move on with the rest of the code.
The directory server license allows for plugins to be released under different licenses, provided the plugin uses only the public API (defined in slapi-plugin.h).
Simo.


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel

Reply via email to