[katello-devel] Licensing?

[Hugh Brock]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 04:31:29PM +0200, Lukas Zapletal wrote:
> I'd rather stick with GNU GPL.
> 
> Do we know the reason why Aeolus have chosen non-GPL licence? Was this
> intentional or are they using some big bunch of ASL licenced code
> (therefore it was forced)? Just asking, if Aeolus was forced, we have no
> issues with staing on the GNU GPL.

It was intentional. We felt the Apache license was much closer to what
the rest of the Ruby world was doing upstream, and also that it served
our product goals better.

--Hugh
> 
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 08:23:29AM -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote:
> > OK...
> > 
> > Katello is GPLV2, and Aeolus is ASL. It would be nice to make it
> > easy to share code, and we know Apache is kinda a big bully around
> > their fancy license. We can not move to GPLV3 (like Foreman) since
> > that is no better [1]. Couple of options:
> > 
> > 1) Katello can switch to either ASL, or MIT.
> > 2) Katello could dual license current and ASL/MIT
> > 3) Do nothing
> > 
> > I dont think we need to worry about any of the backend projects,
> > just the rails parts.
> > 
> > -- bk
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [1] http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > katello-devel mailing list
> > katello-devel at redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/katello-devel
> 
> -- 
> Later,
> 
>  Lukas "lzap" Zapletal
>  #katello #systemengine

-- 
== Hugh Brock, hbrock at redhat.com                                   ==
== Engineering Manager, Cloud BU                                   ==
== Aeolus Project: Manage virtual infrastructure across clouds.    ==
== http://aeolusproject.org                                        ==

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m
not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
--Robert McCloskey