[General] Relicensing of Chandler source code

[Katie Capps Parlante]

I think we should relicense the Chandler code base under the Apache 2.0 
license, for the reasons Ted mentions:

+ We don't expect revenue from licensing the desktop code.

+ We'd like to be developer friendly and promote wider adoption, 
reducing restrictions to using the code.

+ I'd like to see us move to using one license (if possible) for all of 
the projects, to reduce overhead.

At a practical level, the main downside I see in moving away from GPL 
licensing is if there is some GPL'd code from other projects that we'd 
like to use. Do we have any cases of this now, or forsee this happening 
in the near future?

Which projects are currently licensed under the MIT license? Should we 
consider licensing them under the Apache 2.0 license as well?

Cheers,
Katie

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.
> 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