Hi All
Interesting discussion. We've also been discussing this internally. LGPL would be fine for our use-case. LGPL has the added benefit that the weak copyleft 'forces' us to open-source patches. Having a choice means having to go through a painstakingly slow process to internally approve the open-sourcing of code. This can be a big hamper to efficient collaboration... For the moment, we don't reject projects because they have some form of copyleft. I doubt this will become a problem in the future. PS: Regardless of the decision, I think it would be best if there was an official Canonical statement about this licensing business. I haven't found a great source explaining the details of copyleft myself. What exactly a combined work is doesn't seem to be very clear. I get a lot of questions about this, such as "can a GPL'd charm install proprietary software". It would be great to have a [c\C]anonical source to point them to.. 2016-05-05 16:47 GMT+02:00 Mark Shuttleworth <[email protected]>: > Hi folks > > The move to layers, which is fantastic from a charming productivity point > of view, will also raise the question of licensing in a cross-charm way. > Originally, we envisaged each charm being licensed by the charmer > independently, but layers introduce cross-cutting licensing questions, and > in particular, questions about copyleft. > > It certainly is not our intent that contributions from Canonical (which we > generally prefer to make under copyleft licenses) should force a charm > author to pick a copyleft license for their own contributions to their own > charm. > > There are two options for common code that would be obvious solutions - a > limited copyleft (LGPL) and a permissive (Apache2 or BSD). Both options > enable people to bring shared public layers into their charms but still > pick their own licenses for their own layers and additional bits. The LGPL > option would require people modifying shared layers to allow others to use > their modifications ("if you edit this file, we can merge your edits") but > any new pieces created by them (typically specific to their charms) could > be restricted for their own use. > > The OSM project, which is using charms for telco application modelling, > has a preference for Apache2, which is arguably also a preference for many > other industrial-scale initiatives. > > We could also dual-license these components (Apache2 + LGPL, or even > Apache2 + GPL). > > Am writing to gather feedback from the charmer community as to your > preferences in this regard. > > Mark > > -- > Juju mailing list > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju > >
-- Juju mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
