On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:36 PM, David Lang <[email protected]> wrote: > But even before the shift to ASL, wasn't rsyslog under GPLv2+ not GPLv3? >
... and GPLv3 _is_ v2+. I've seen several corporate OSS sponsors over the years gravitate in that direction simply because it's a stronger "defensive" position against competitors' re-use of the code. It's not like IBM isn't contributing to other GPLv2 and ASL projects (The > Linux kernel and Apache Open Office are two examples) The IBM legal department (especially IP) is pretty vast and there is rarely any central coordination (which could be said for most of IBM in general). The rough process is that contributors have to get individually blessed as OSS contributors, then projects they want to contribute to are individually approved for a given context including license. This is a long, drawn-out, multi-tier process and can easily take 3-6 months per leg. Once completed it basically amounts to an internal "contract" that cannot be easily changed and face time with the legal team is sparse. 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. To be blunt, you have no idea what IBM would be interested in, and neither do they. The developers probably want to fix it but have likely already been tasked to another project and will have to wait until approval and their hours plan rolls back around. IBM time is glacial time. _______________________________________________ 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.
