On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 08:53:57AM -0600, Karl O. Pinc wrote:

> > Summary: The pmacct project is looking to relicense its code from the
> > current GPL license to a more liberal BSD-style license.
> > 
> > 1) Faced with our own mortality, it became clear that succession
> >    planning is of paramount importance for this project's continued
> >    success. We contemplated what happens in context of intellectual
> >    property rights should one of pmacct's contributors pass away, and
> >    realized potential heirs won't necessarily desire involvement in this
> >    open source project, potentially hampering changes to intellectual
> >    property policies in the project's future. 
> > 
> > 2) We suspect there are entities who violate the terms of pmacct's
> >    current GPL license, but at the same time we don't wish to litigate.
> >    Instead of getting infringers to change their behavior, relicensing
> >    the project could be another way to resolve the potential for
> >    conflict: we see benefits to removing rules we don't plan on
> >    enforcing anyway.
> 
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 16:02:35 +0200
> Lennert Buytenhek <buyt...@wantstofly.org> wrote:
> 
> > Although the stated reasoning
> > for the relicensing effort feels somewhat specious to me, 
> 
> I agree.  (Disclaimer: I'm not a contributor.)
> 
> 1) If we wanted to change the licensing, we couldn't, after we're
> dead.
> 
> 2) People are violating our rights and we don't want to do
> anything about it.
> 
> I don't want to argue one way or another but it would be nice
> to have a real reason.  There are good reasons available,
> all the way down to "I wrote most of it and I changed my mind."
> 
> Even if there's some commercial entity that wants to sell
> pmacct in their product and won't because of the licensing,
> it would be nice to know this.  Especially knowing who.
> (E.g. We know that Amazon uses PostgreSQL as the basis
> of their RDS database product, and does not contribute
> back as far as I can tell.)  It'd be nice to know who 
> the contributors are helping.

FWIW, I fully agree with this analysis.  I chose to agree with the
relicensing anyway as I don't think this is an important enough
battle to fight.   (If someone were to ask me to relicense my Linux
kernel contributions under a closed-source-able license, I would be
a lot more upset.)

_______________________________________________
pmacct-discussion mailing list
http://www.pmacct.net/#mailinglists

Reply via email to