[Pulp-dev] Pulp 3 Licensing

[Robin Chan]

Hi Simon,

Thanks for sharing your understanding. A few of us were firm in our
understanding that Pulp 3 was GPLv2, but your input has caused us to look
closer and realize there are some mentions of GPLv2 or later and GPLv2.
I've reached out to Red Hat legal department for assistance in clarifying
the current licensing.  I'll pass along what I learn.

At the very least it seems we need to be clearer and consistent in
communicating the current licensing.

I welcome any other input or concerns from stakeholders and community in
the meantime.

Thanks,
Robin

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 4:37 PM Simon Baatz <gmbnomis at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Dana,
>
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 03:55:38PM -0500, Dana Walker wrote:
> >    Thus far, Pulp 3 has been operating under the GPLv2 license.  Given
> the
> >    way the GPL defines derivative works, this means that the plugins
> >    should also be licensed as GPLv2.  Take a look at this FAQ to further
> >    clarify the current state of things. [0]
>
> To be more precise, Pulp 3 is operating under GPLv2 or later license
> IIRC.  IANAL, but this should allow plugins to be licensed under
> GPLv3 as well.  Without the "or later" clause, GPLv3 and GPLv2 are
> incompatible, see [0].
>
> >    What we’d like to hear is feedback from each of our stakeholders and
> >    community members.  Do you have any concerns with this license, or are
> >    you happy with leaving things as is?
>
> I am perfectly fine with it (personally, I like GPLv2 only better, but I
> licensed pulp_cookbook under GPLv2+ as well to keep things simple)
>
> [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20190212/64c60f7e/attachment.htm>