Re: Relicensing of Chandler source code

Ted

At 05:00 PM 5/2/2006, Ted Leung wrote:
>The source code for Chandler is currently licensed under the GPL.
>This was done because at some point in the past, we thought that a
>dual license strategy similar to that used by MySQL might be a viable
>model for the sustainability of the foundation.   In today's world,
>that doesn't seem to make much sense.    There are also some good
>reasons for Chandler to move away from GPL licensing
>
>1. The GPL viral provisions would force parcel developers to license
>their code under the GPL.
You don't believe that the lGPL provisions apply (or any other 
license for that matter)?  Does a parcel really NEED to fall under 
the terms of  the GPL?



>2. We want to reduce the proliferation of licenses used by OSAF
>projects.  All the rest of our server code is licensed under the
>Apache 2.0 license, and some of our other projects are licensed under
>the MIT license.
>
>What do people think about relicensing the Chandler code base under
>the Apache 2.0 license?
>
>Ted
>
>
>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
>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