Re: Relicensing of Chandler source code

Ok then, +1 on the Apache license.

On May 2, 2006, at 6:34 PM, Ted Leung wrote:

>
> On May 2, 2006, at 6:05 PM, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
>
>> If we use the apache 2.0 license, which is incompatible with the  
>> GPL, wouldn't we then be restricting parcel developers from using  
>> the GPL if they did wish to do so?
>
> No, parcel developers can license under any terms they like.   
> Additionally, the FSF and ASF are working on removing the  
> incompatibility problems (which mostly are in RMS's head)
>
>>
>> Many developers like the "viral" aspect of the GPL because it  
>> requires those who are modifying the code to contribute it back to  
>> that community and I wouldn't want to alienate those developers.
>
> On the other hand, there are also many developers who dislike the  
> viral aspects of the GPL.
>
>>
>> IMHO we should pick the license that restricts the parcel writers  
>> choice of software licenses the least. I'm not a licensing expert  
>> so I don't know what the best solution is but I think that the  
>> LGPL or the Python licenses could work.
>
> The least restrictive license is a license from the BSD family of  
> licenses (BSD, MIT, Apache).   The Apache license is the one that  
> best accounts for the state of the world that we live in today.
>
> ----
> Ted Leung                 Open Source Applications Foundation (OSAF)
>
>
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general