openlmi-scripts license

Roman Rakus rrakus at redhat.com
Tue Jul 30 13:21:12 UTC 2013


I'm for dual license - GPL (any version) and BSD

RR

On 07/29/2013 09:40 PM, Russell Doty wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 15:21 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>> Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> Ok, while your point is valid, there's an (unfortunate) perception by
>>> many that what I said is true. [...]
>>
>> Please help correct the perception then! :-)
> Higher profile people than Stephen have tried...   :-(
>
> A significant number of companies remain concerned about "GPL
> contamination; we aren't going to be able to fix that in the LMI
> project.
>>
>>> I stand by my recommendation that we should use a more permissive
>>> license here.  I'm certainly open to arguments to the contrary,
>>> though.
>>
>> Considering the tiny (?) scripts, any elaborate licensing is probably
>> unjustified.  Public domain, dual licensing, BSD, whatever...
> BSD 2-clause looks like a good choice.
>>
>>
>> - FChE
>> _______________________________________________
>> openlmi-devel mailing list
>> openlmi-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
>> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/openlmi-devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openlmi-devel mailing list
> openlmi-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/openlmi-devel
>



More information about the openlmi-devel mailing list