Hello, Has there been any updates on this issue? >From what I can tell, there is still a discrepancy between the 389-ds FAQ (which mentions the plugin license exception) and the actual 389-ds license. I'd like to know if reinstating the license exception is still on the cards, or if we should prepare our plugins to be released under GPLv3. Regards, Vincent Duvert -----Message d'origine----- Hello, I have a question regarding the licensing of developed 389-ds plugins. The FAQ (https://directory.fedoraproject.org/docs/389ds/FAQ/licensing.html#directory-server-plugin-licensing) indicates that the Directory Server core code is licensed under a GPL + Exception license that allows non-GPL 389-ds plugins to link to 389-ds and to use specific header files. However, the LICENSE file in the current 389-ds-base source does not contain this exception. It was apparently removed by the following commit, when the license was changed to GPLv3+: https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/c/88cae401aee39a19ac6b07c3c36ee8daa07192e7 Does that means that the license exception does not apply to the current version of 389-ds? Regards, Vincent Duvert _______________________________________________ 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
