[General] Relicensing of Chandler source code

[Ted Leung]

On May 3, 2006, at 6:09 AM, Graham Bird wrote:

> 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?

I'm not sure I understand your first question.  I would like parcel  
writers to have their choice of licenses.  If Chandler is GPL'ed,  
then my understanding of the GPL is that
parcels would have to be GPL'ed.   At Apache we had our attorneys  
look at this issue and their advice was that a GPL or even LGPL  
platform could infect software built on top it.  The context was  
Java, and this is one of the reasons that the ASF decided to do the  
Geronimo J2EE server, even though there was already an LGPL J2EE  
server (JBoss) in the market.

----
Ted Leung                 Open Source Applications Foundation (OSAF)