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.
--
[email protected] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
