On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:02 AM, Nate Finch <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >
That sort of misses the point of building apps that use juju apis. Yes the two packages need to be updated together for new changes same as today. > There's not that much code under cmd/juju compared to the whole rest of > the repo. > Again its not about that code, its about building other applications and facilitating integrations. cheers, Kapil > > 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
