I'm for dual license - GPL (any version) and BSD
RR
On 07/29/2013 09:40 PM, Russell Doty wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 15:21 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> writes:
>
>> Ok, while your point is valid, there's an (unfortunate) perception by
>> many that what I said is true. [...]
>
> Please help correct the perception then! :-)
Higher profile people than Stephen have tried... :-(
A significant number of companies remain concerned about "GPL
contamination; we aren't going to be able to fix that in the LMI
project.
>
>> I stand by my recommendation that we should use a more permissive
>> license here. I'm certainly open to arguments to the contrary,
>> though.
>
> Considering the tiny (?) scripts, any elaborate licensing is probably
> unjustified. Public domain, dual licensing, BSD, whatever...
BSD 2-clause looks like a good choice.
>
>
> - FChE
> _______________________________________________
> openlmi-devel mailing list
> openlmi-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/openlmi-devel
_______________________________________________
openlmi-devel mailing list
openlmi-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/openlmi-devel