On 02/07/2011 07:12 AM, Marc-André Moreau wrote: > Hi FreeRDP developers, > > It has been in our plans for a while now to change the current licensing > of FreeRDP to something more permissive. We are currently using GPLv2 > for everything, which is not necessarily a good thing, especially when > it comes to the libraries. LGPL could be a choice, but I am not convinced. > > I looked at the various popular permissive software licenses and one > that stood out was the Apache License 2.0: > http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html > > The Apache Software Foundation is quite big and is also quite active. > There is a good amount of good open source projects using the license. > Also, it is a license that Google particularly likes for its own open > source software. It is compatible with a lot of licenses, including > GPLv3. One small problem that can be worked around though with ASL is > that it is not compatible with GPLv2. This means that anything under > GPLv2 that would use FreeRDP librairies under ASL would need to upgrade > to GPLv3. It's a bit annoying, but not too bad, since there aren't that > many projects that would be affected by such a change. Besides our UIs > (if we keep them GPL'ed), Remmina would be affected, but I asked Vic and > he seems open to the idea. > > The Apache Software License would increase our compatibility with crypto > libraries which often have compatibility problems with GPL. Also, if we > have our librairies in ASL, we would allow non-GPL versions of FreeRDP > to be made for potential distribution in GPL-unfriendly environments > such as Apple's App Store. Personally, I think it's just sad that google > applications like VLC have been removed from the App Store because > developers themselves made a complaint. People have strong disagreements > in what to do in such cases, but the end result is still a desolating > mess and I'd rather clear such potential issues before they happens. I'm > not saying we're about to get into such issues any time soon, but since > a license change doesn't happen very often we might as well resolve this > issue now. > > Another reason for switching to a permissive license would be to make > FreeRDP more attractive for people with commercial interests. We already > have companies using the software in thin clients, and it's ok this way, > but I'd rather get rid of the GPL chilling effect to get more people > involved. Also, we can't ignore the fact that we're providing an open > source implementation of a Microsoft specification, and that Microsoft > owns the patents on it but promises not to sue people that use it. In my > mind, that pretty much makes a lot of the extra protection from the GPL > worth not that much after all. > > I would like to make this license change for FreeRDP 0.9, if possible. I > went quickly over the names in the headers of the source code, there > isn't that much left from rdesktop, so most people that need to be ask > for their consent should be on freerdp-devel. Besides Vic, I have also > talked with Jay, and he is also open to the idea. To repeat what I told > him: "A free software license should help it grow, not stand in its way". > > What is your opinion on this? Are there any strong disagreements, or > suggestions?
I agree that the license should be changed. "At least" we should follow rdesktop to GPLv2+ and thus be GPLv3 compatible. That would allow us to continue to share code with rdesktop (if we should want to), and assuming they did their relicensing correctly there can't be any legal problems there. We can just go ahead and do it. Personally I as a minor contributor is fine with relicensing my contributions under other open source licenses. FWIW I would prefer a license that allowed integration in non-GPL projects but required all changes to FreeRDP code itself to be given back to open source. I guess that would mean LGPL. However, IANAL, but I am convinced that we can't legally change the license to anything but GPL without getting explicit permission from everybody who has ever contributed to rdesktop or FreeRDP. People own the copyright to their changes even if they not are listed as copyright holders in the file. GPL is viral and also applies to derived products, so even original code that we have written in a GPL context might be tied to the GPL license. Changing every line manually or rewriting the code piece by piece doesn't necessarily prevent it from being derived code. I do not think we in good faith just can change to a non GPL license. I would recommend consulting a lawyer before doing that - perhaps by contacting Software Freedom Law Center or Software Freedom Conservancy. Some less relevant comments/opinions: OpenSSL is AFAIK the only common crypto library that is incompatible with GPL. Closed source modifications to use other crypto libraries (no matter what their license is) is obviously also a problem - just like all other unpublished modifications. GPL rdesktop code is already on app store. FWIW. Apache 2 code can't be relicensed to GPL, but Apache 2 and GPLv3 are link compatible (and Apache also considers it GPLv2 compatible). So even if the FreeRDP license was Apache 2 there wouldn't be any need for dual licensing. /Mads not a lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The modern datacenter depends on network connectivity to access resources and provide services. The best practices for maximizing a physical server's connectivity to a physical network are well understood - see how these rules translate into the virtual world? http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnlfb _______________________________________________ Freerdp-devel mailing list Freerdp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freerdp-devel
