Licensing Guidelines for apps we write

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Hi, I've had a chance to talk to spot and I've drafted the following
policy about licensing the things that we write in Fedora Infrastructure:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Licensing

Do people like it?  Is a GPL family license pretty much everywhere good
for everyone or are there places that we'd like the general rule to be
"MIT" or something looser instead?

I want to relicense python-fedora (GPLv2 => LGPLv2+), pkgdb and fas
(GPLv2 => AGPLv3+) if we approve this.  I'll talk to the contributors to
those projects to make sure they have no objections first, but is that
generally acceptable?  Anyone else want to join in on the relicensing?
Having things under compatible licenses will make code sharing possible.
(GPLv2 only is not compatible with AGPLv3+) which is my incentive for
migrating apps that I'm contributing to onto a common licensing scheme.

I'm putting this on the meeting agenda for Thursday but discussion in
the mailing list is also welcome.

-Toshio

[Brennan Ashton]

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Hi, I've had a chance to talk to spot and I've drafted the following
> policy about licensing the things that we write in Fedora Infrastructure:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Licensing
>
> Do people like it?  Is a GPL family license pretty much everywhere good
> for everyone or are there places that we'd like the general rule to be
> "MIT" or something looser instead?
>
> I want to relicense python-fedora (GPLv2 => LGPLv2+), pkgdb and fas
> (GPLv2 => AGPLv3+) if we approve this.  I'll talk to the contributors to
> those projects to make sure they have no objections first, but is that
> generally acceptable?  Anyone else want to join in on the relicensing?
> Having things under compatible licenses will make code sharing possible.
> (GPLv2 only is not compatible with AGPLv3+) which is my incentive for
> migrating apps that I'm contributing to onto a common licensing scheme.
>
> I'm putting this on the meeting agenda for Thursday but discussion in
> the mailing list is also welcome.
>
> -Toshio

Triageweb, the metrics application that is still in development right
now that I am writing is GPLv2 if I remember correctly, but I have no
preference on the matter, and will go with what is ever easiest for
everyone else.  Just let me know.

Best Regards,
Brennan Ashton

[Nigel Jones]

----- "Toshio Kuratomi"  wrote:
> Hi, I've had a chance to talk to spot and I've drafted the following
> policy about licensing the things that we write in Fedora
> Infrastructure:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Licensing
>
> Do people like it?  Is a GPL family license pretty much everywhere
> good
> for everyone or are there places that we'd like the general rule to
> be
> "MIT" or something looser instead?
>
> I want to relicense python-fedora (GPLv2 => LGPLv2+), pkgdb and fas
> (GPLv2 => AGPLv3+) if we approve this.  I'll talk to the contributors
> to
> those projects to make sure they have no objections first, but is
> that
> generally acceptable?  Anyone else want to join in on the
> relicensing?
> Having things under compatible licenses will make code sharing
> possible.
> (GPLv2 only is not compatible with AGPLv3+) which is my incentive for
> migrating apps that I'm contributing to onto a common licensing
> scheme.
>
> I'm putting this on the meeting agenda for Thursday but discussion in
> the mailing list is also welcome.

I definitely won't be at the meeting tomorrow, but yes, this is something that must be done, +1 from me.

I guess to fit in, we should do the some for the voting app.

- Nigel

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On 07/01/2009 09:37 PM, Nigel Jones wrote:
> ----- "Toshio Kuratomi"  wrote:
> > Hi, I've had a chance to talk to spot and I've drafted the following
> > policy about licensing the things that we write in Fedora
> > Infrastructure:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Licensing
> >
> > Do people like it?  Is a GPL family license pretty much everywhere
> > good
> > for everyone or are there places that we'd like the general rule to
> > be
> > "MIT" or something looser instead?
> >
> > I want to relicense python-fedora (GPLv2 => LGPLv2+), pkgdb and fas
> > (GPLv2 => AGPLv3+) if we approve this.  I'll talk to the contributors
> > to
> > those projects to make sure they have no objections first, but is
> > that
> > generally acceptable?  Anyone else want to join in on the
> > relicensing?
> > Having things under compatible licenses will make code sharing
> > possible.
> > (GPLv2 only is not compatible with AGPLv3+) which is my incentive for
> > migrating apps that I'm contributing to onto a common licensing
> > scheme.
> >
> > I'm putting this on the meeting agenda for Thursday but discussion in
> > the mailing list is also welcome.
>
> I definitely won't be at the meeting tomorrow, but yes, this is something that must be done, +1 from me.
>
> I guess to fit in, we should do the some for the voting app.

<nod>  That would be ideal.  Relicensing all of our GPLv2-only apps to
reflect these Guidelines would be good.  Mirrormanager is MIT licensed
and that doesn't need to be relicensed to fit in as MIT is compatible
with all of the GPL family of licenses.

-Toshio

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 07/02/2009 08:53 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Hi, I've had a chance to talk to spot and I've drafted the following
> policy about licensing the things that we write in Fedora Infrastructure:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Licensing
>
> Do people like it?  Is a GPL family license pretty much everywhere good
> for everyone or are there places that we'd like the general rule to be
> "MIT" or something looser instead?

Has Red Hat Legal been consulted on this?

Rahul

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On 07/02/2009 07:03 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 07/02/2009 08:53 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > Hi, I've had a chance to talk to spot and I've drafted the following
> > policy about licensing the things that we write in Fedora Infrastructure:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Licensing
> >
> > Do people like it?  Is a GPL family license pretty much everywhere good
> > for everyone or are there places that we'd like the general rule to be
> > "MIT" or something looser instead?
>
> Has Red Hat Legal been consulted on this?

I've consulted spot.  Spot based his input on the policy on feedback he
received while relicensing Fedora Community to AGPLv3+.

-Toshio

[Mike McGrath]

On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 07/02/2009 08:53 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > Hi, I've had a chance to talk to spot and I've drafted the following
> > policy about licensing the things that we write in Fedora Infrastructure:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Licensing
> >
> > Do people like it?  Is a GPL family license pretty much everywhere good
> > for everyone or are there places that we'd like the general rule to be
> > "MIT" or something looser instead?
>
> Has Red Hat Legal been consulted on this?

I think since spot was involved thats a yes.

-Mike