On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, RB wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:53 AM, David Lang <[email protected]> wrote:
Interesting, it's unusual for IBM to contribute code under a different
license than the upstream project (which I believe was GPLv2+ before the
stated desire to shift to ASL)
One of two options, in order of probability. The first is that they
started the contribution before the shift to ASL; as massive an obstacle as
doing official OSS contribution from within IBM is (you should /see/ the
education & documentation requirements), the legal team approved GPLv3 as
the release license and there was too much pain involved in changing "at
the last minute."
The other option is that IBM legal likes v3's "defensive" stance against
providing leverage to competitors and is trying to force things down that
path. Unlikely, but there are some actors there that would behave this way.
But even before the shift to ASL, wasn't rsyslog under GPLv2+ not GPLv3?
From watching many different projects, it seems really unusual for IBM to try
and force a change to a projects license, which is what the effect would be if
they contribute GPLv3+ code to a GPLv2+ project.
It's not like IBM isn't contributing to other GPLv2 and ASL projects (The Linux
kernel and Apache Open Office are two examples)
There's a lot of potential commentary here, but knowing the probable actors
involved I firmly expect #1.
If it is #1, then it seems reasonable that IBM would be interesting in fixing
the problem rather than having to re-do the work for newer versions of rsyslog.
David Lang
_______________________________________________
rsyslog mailing list
http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/
What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards
NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of
sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T LIKE
THAT.
