While I am generally for using more permissive licenses, I'm not sure how useful that might be... most significant changes require modifications to both the client and the server, or at least to libraries used by both. There's not that much code under cmd/juju compared to the whole rest of the repo.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Kapil Thangavelu < [email protected]> wrote: > > one of the issues with having it in tree, means client usage falls under > the AGPL. We want to have the client used widely under a more permissive > license. I've already had contributions to other projects n'acked due to > license on our libraries. I'd like to see it moved to a separate repo so > that's possible. Thoughts? > > cheers, > Kapil > > > > -- > Juju-dev mailing list > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev > >
-- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
