> On Jan 13, 2015, at 1:47 PM, Jeremy Stanley <fu...@yuggoth.org> wrote: > > On 2015-01-13 18:28:04 +0000 (+0000), Csaba Henk wrote: > [...] >> What we are puzzled on is the license. This is something we have >> to figure out before we think of setting up the project. In >> general it's understood that Apache License (v2) is preferred. >> Question: is that a strict requirement on Stackforge or just a >> suggestion? > [...] > > As far as I know we've no formalized license policy for StackForge > hosting, though I think there's an assumption that it needs to be > redistributable under an OSI/DFSG/FSF recognized license variant. > Certainly hosting a derivative work of software which is under a > more "copyleft" license brings those additional license terms with > it, and seems like a reasonably pragmatic choice to me (compared > with the alternative of reinventing the wheel entirely in a > clean-room effort to avoid the original license terms). > > http://ci.openstack.org/stackforge.html
The foundation does have some rules that apply to official projects, though. I don’t know how the current big-tent discussions will affect projects that are not using an Apache license. It has come up in the context of existing projects, and things that would not be expected to be included in an OpenStack release, but I don’t know if we’ve discussed it for projects that might want to be part of a release. You may want to check with the TC before choosing something other than Apache, just to make sure it isn’t going to turn into a problem for you in the future. Doug > > -- > Jeremy Stanley > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-Infra mailing list > OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra _______________________________________________ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
