Licensing Guidelines for apps we write

[Brennan Ashton]

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Toshio Kuratomi<a.badger at gmail.com> 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