Since waffle changed from Apache 2.0 to BSD in 367378863bcc6801f5ae5ad786c09d39e0890370, we should avoid accepting contributions under that license for the same reasons.
Signed-off-by: Jordan Justen <[email protected]> --- My recommendation is that the wording should request that BSD be used, but note that MIT licensed code would also be accepted. The reason is that I think the fewer licenses used, the easier time people have determining how they can use the library. Isn't waffle still 100% BSD-2-clause? HACKING.txt | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/HACKING.txt b/HACKING.txt index a6a29fb..46a9b2d 100644 --- a/HACKING.txt +++ b/HACKING.txt @@ -142,8 +142,7 @@ organization to that file's copyright header. If adding new files, do not use a copyleft license (such as the GPL). All Waffle source code must be licensed under a liberal opensource license (such as BSD). To reduce license proliferation, Waffle prefers (but does not require) -that new code be licensed under one of the following licenses: BSD, MIT, Apache -2.0. +that new code be licensed under one of the following licenses: BSD, MIT. References -- 2.1.0 _______________________________________________ waffle mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/waffle
