openlmi-scripts license

Stephen Gallagher sgallagh at redhat.com
Mon Jul 29 17:45:41 UTC 2013


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/29/2013 01:41 PM, Russell Doty wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 13:30 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> I was thinking about the license for the code in the
>> openlmi-scripts project. Right now, it's listed upstream as
>> LGPLv2+, but I think this might not be the ideal license here.
>> 
>> My reasoning is that our intended use for these scriptons is
>> that administrators should be able to take them and adapt them
>> for their own use cases. However, the LGPLv2 license *requires*
>> that they make their modifications public. We want to encourage
>> them to submit their changes back, but I think that for this
>> use-case, the LGPLv2 may be a little too heavyweight.
> Hmm, good point.
>> 
>> I'd suggest instead that we might want to choose the BSD (two-
>> or three-clause variant) or ISC license for this project, as it
>> will allow a bit more leeway on the part of the consumers.
> What license do we use for scripts in other projects?

Most projects' scripts just get the project's license by default. I'm
not really aware offhand of another project that is offering only
scripts. In this specific example, the scripts *are* the project, so
we should treat their needs as primary. I think it's likely that the
GPL probably puts too many requirements on the consumers that it may
limit adoption.

I should be clear: I'm not suggesting altering the OpenLMI providers
and client libraries at all here. Those should remain as LGPLv2, since
contributors to those portions really *do* need to be sharing changes
back for the project to benefit.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlH2qkUACgkQeiVVYja6o6NtwQCcCYg7V4ilR92H7QHz+cZdj0PM
UCEAoKxmdbOI424+i/4lyqWp21jzOI0x
=4V1/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the openlmi-devel mailing list