On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:16:03AM -0500, Paul Frields wrote:
[re Drupal GPLv2+ policy]
> I don't know a reason why a project's requirement for specific free licenses
> should be viewed as strong-arming. After all, both parties have something to
> gain from the relationship of having code in Drupal's CVS system. Furthermore,
> the Drupal project doesn't prohibit an author from multiple licensing of code
> (as long as the additional licensing doesn't invalidate the licensing under
> GPLv2+, presumably). For instance, jQuery is found in Drupal CVS, which is
> dual-licensed MIT/GPLv2.
One legitimate criticism one could raise about the Drupal policy is
why it doesn't also permit GPLv2+-compatible code (that is not
explicitly GPLv2+-licensed) in its repositories. GPL compatibility is
a somewhat fragile but important customary doctrine that I'd like to
see projects give support to through policies of this sort. However, I
see that Drupal has addressed this very issue here:
and the explanation seems quite rational to me, even if not's the
policy I'd support if I were involved in the project.
Thanks for that link Richard; it was useful. I do have to say that,
regardless of any differences from Fedora's approach to licensing that
may exist, one of the things I'm fairly impressed with in the Drupal
community is the amount of readily available documentation on their
licensing choices and policies.