[Freeipa-devel] contribution policy update, what's next

[Simo Sorce]

On Mon, 2009-08-31 at 18:50 -0600, Rich Megginson wrote:
> Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-08-31 at 13:23 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
> >   
> >> Richard looked at the license-specific version, made some suggestions,
> >> then asked if there is a reason for being GPLv2 only as a project and
> >> codebase.  For example, many projects are licensed "GPLv2 or later",
> >> yet there was some confusion around the time that GPLv3 came out if
> >> that was advisable.  Is this project GPLv2-specific on purpose?
> >>     
> >
> > No there isn't a specific reason IPA is GPLv2 Only, at the time when we
> > started I actually proposed to use the brand new GPLv3 or later diction,
> > but legal was not yet comfortable with GPLv3 so we went the default RH
> > license at the time which was GPLv2 only.
> >
> > I would actually like to move to GPLv2 or later or even GPLv3 or later
> > if our external code dependencies allows it without trouble.
> >
> > I think the only code that we may not be able to move to GPLv3 is the
> > directory server plugins as DS is GPLv2+exceptions, but I have no
> > problem in clearly spelling out that plugins have a different license
> > because of their dependency and move on with the rest of the code.
> >   
> The directory server license allows for plugins to be released under 
> different licenses, provided the plugin uses only the public API 
> (defined in slapi-plugin.h).

Yes, but that not what I am concerned about.
I am not sure a plugin licensed under the GPLvX can be linked to the
Directory Server without any exception.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York