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