On 2016-11-14 09:53:03 -0600 (-0600), Michał Jastrzębski wrote: [...] > We don't have any other project with multiple licenses in it? What > would LICENSE file in github show? Do we need to mention parts of > GPL there?
We have plenty (I expect it may even be a majority) of repos containing files under different licenses, though I'm not aware of examples of one of our repos containing files under a mix of GPLv3 and Apache License v2.0. A quick search for http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=gpl&i=1 turns up the openstack/murano-apps repo which has content aggregated under a mix of Apache License v2.0, GPLv2 (inherited from Plone), GPLv3 (from Clearwater), and GNU AGPLv3 (SugarCRM); it calls them out with separate LICENSE files in different subtrees. The openstack/vmtp repo has an aggregation of Apache License v2.0, BSD and GPLv2 files with some details in their README.rst explaining the situation. A number of Apache-licensed repos used to include a tools/rfc.sh script (copied from Horizon I think?) which claimed in its comment header to be distributed under GPLv3, though these seem to have been cleaned up in all non-retired repos more recently. The openstack/fuel-library repo has a dangerous-looking mix of Puppet modules under Apache License v2.0 and GPLv2 licenses, so probably not a shining example of how to go about this. Hopefully that provides a diverse cross-section of examples. -- Jeremy Stanley
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
