On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Toshio Kuratomi<a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, I've had a chance to talk to spot and I've drafted the following > policy about licensing the things that we write in Fedora Infrastructure: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Licensing > > Do people like it? Is a GPL family license pretty much everywhere good > for everyone or are there places that we'd like the general rule to be > "MIT" or something looser instead? > > I want to relicense python-fedora (GPLv2 => LGPLv2+), pkgdb and fas > (GPLv2 => AGPLv3+) if we approve this. I'll talk to the contributors to > those projects to make sure they have no objections first, but is that > generally acceptable? Anyone else want to join in on the relicensing? > Having things under compatible licenses will make code sharing possible. > (GPLv2 only is not compatible with AGPLv3+) which is my incentive for > migrating apps that I'm contributing to onto a common licensing scheme. > > I'm putting this on the meeting agenda for Thursday but discussion in > the mailing list is also welcome. > > -Toshio Triageweb, the metrics application that is still in development right now that I am writing is GPLv2 if I remember correctly, but I have no preference on the matter, and will go with what is ever easiest for everyone else. Just let me know. Best Regards, Brennan Ashton _______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
