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

[Dmitri Pal]

Simo Sorce wrote:
> 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.
>
>   
I think what Rich said means that DS plugins can be licensed as we think
appropriate without any special exception for DS itself.

-- 
Thank you,
Dmitri Pal

Engineering Manager IPA project,
Red Hat Inc.


-------------------------------
Looking to carve out IT costs?
www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/