Hi Josh,
Actually, Apache License 2.0 is compatible with GPLv3, but not GPLv2. Here
is more info:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
<http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html>I was thinking that
we might keep the UIs GPL'ed, since I don't see much use in making them
available in a more permissive license. The GPLv3 compatibility is one way:
for instance, if you distribute code that is partially GPLv3 and ASL, then
the whole code is considered GPLv3. However, if you distribute the libraries
alone under ASL, they remain under ASL.
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Josh Nisly <free...@joshnisly.com> wrote:
> A disclaimer: I'm not a significant contributor to the project, so
> I'll go along with whatever is decided.
>
> Have you considered dual-licensing GPL and Apache? It seems that
> Apache is incompatible with the GPL. Making the project incompatible
> with GPL projects seems like a step backward, IMO.
>
> JoshN
>
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Marc-André Moreau
> <marcandre.mor...@gmail.com> 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?
> > Best regards,
> > - Marc-Andre
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
