[General] Relicensing of Chandler source code

[Ted Leung]

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)