Hi Rob, On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 21:03 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > Any chance of TDF requiring Apache 2.0 for new code > contributions, in addition to their current requirement > for LGPL/MPL ?
What an extraordinary question. I had thought it was (by now) fairly clear that many companies and many volunteer developers around TDF had made their pragmatic, and in some cases idealistic commitment to copy-left licensing super-abundantly clear. I don't think that is a matter of ego, personally. It seems ~pointless to suggest a copy-left license dualed with a non-copy-left license: that is just a non-copy-left license. For TDF to -require- that would be incredibly dumb, cf. loosing many of our developers. Of course, perhaps some of our membership, and more importantly the developers owning the code might agree to that - but I for one would argue strongly against it. > Doing so would open up many more possibilities for future > collaboration and cooperation. Not doing so would severely > constrain possibilities for cooperation. Sure - but there are lots of other options for opening up possibilities for collaboration and co-operation, such as IBM making a commitment to working with the developer community and respecting the license we (IBM and the TDF) compromised :-) Of course the TDF door is always open to new contributors no matter how they have behaved in the past. However so far I see no possibility of any such compromise, only of reality eventually biting. Lets see which ideology is eventually bitten hardest: it'll be an interesting experiment for sure. HTH, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot