I was thinking about the license for the code in the openlmi-scripts project. Right now, it's listed upstream as LGPLv2+, but I think this might not be the ideal license here. My reasoning is that our intended use for these scriptons is that administrators should be able to take them and adapt them for their own use cases. However, the LGPLv2 license *requires* that they make their modifications public. We want to encourage them to submit their changes back, but I think that for this use-case, the LGPLv2 may be a little too heavyweight.

I'd suggest instead that we might want to choose the BSD (two- or three-clause variant) or ISC license for this project, as it will allow a bit more leeway on the part of the consumers.

_______________________________________________ openlmi-devel mailing list openlmi-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/openlmi-devel

My reasoning is that our intended use for these scriptons is that administrators should be able to take them and adapt them for their own use cases. However, the LGPLv2 license *requires* that they make their modifications public. [...]

Ok, while your point is valid, there's an (unfortunate) perception by many that what I said is true. [...]

I stand by my recommendation that we should use a more permissive license here. I'm certainly open to arguments to the contrary, though.

On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 15:21 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt; 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

Can you explain the benefit to this? Multiple-licensing tends to introduce issues, so I'd like to know what you see as the advantage.

On Mon 05 of Aug 2013 9:10:41 Roman Rakus wrote: > Any consensus? > > I'm going to write scripts, licensed under LGPLv2+ or BSD (2-clause > license as described on wikipedia [1]) > > RR > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses I don't see any advantage in using dual licensing, it's just mess. Everyone making changes will take the BSD license because it's giving him more freedom - he can use it even with *GPL* code. I would suggest using BSD-style license only in order to simplify adoption of the scripts.