[Advisors] Thoughts on a license change.

[Anand Babu Periasamy]

Yes, ideally. How ever, linking to older GPLv2 code may be problematic with
Apache License. QEMU is GPLv2.


On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 11:07 AM, David Nalley <david at gnsa.us> wrote:

> Personally, I see dual-licensing as being better, but not ideal. It
> still leaves a lot of confusion on the part of the non-FOSS-zealots.
> I'd personally advocate for a single permissive license.
>
> --David
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Anand Babu Periasamy
> <abperiasamy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I cannot agree more. I have been advocating to dual-license or re-license
> > GlusterFS under Apache Software License v2 for the last two years. GPL
> > defends freedom strongly, but hurts adoption. Folks at Red Hat care about
> > software freedom more than adoption. Lets push it once again.
> > -ab
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 8:40 AM, John Mark Walker <johnmark at johnmark.org
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Adding advisors list.
> >>
> >> On Aug 10, 2013 11:16 AM, "David Nalley" <david at gnsa.us> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi folks,
> >>>
> >>> Just tossing out a question or two.
> >>>
> >>> So I'd like to propose that we consider changing to either the ASLv2,
> >>> MIT, or BSD licenses.
> >>>
> >>> Why? So I personally strongly identify with copyleft principles, but
> >>> my experience in the past few years are that the practical and
> >>> irrational concerns around licensing hurt adoption and hurt
> >>> contribution.
> >>>
> >>> Specifically, I found that several very large enterprises (~100k
> >>> employees each) said that they never even considered CloudStack at the
> >>> time because it was licensed under a GPL license. The dual-licensing
> >>> bit muddies the waters a bit rather than helps. For the folks who are
> >>> educated very well in open source, it's great. For folks who aren't as
> >>> sophisiticated in OSS licensing it's merely confusing.
> >>>
> >>> Second - there's the potential damper on contribution. Despite how
> >>> long GPL has been around, much FUD still remains around copyleft
> >>> licensing; and that keeps people employed by large corporate users
> >>> from contributing (at least that has been my experience) The more
> >>> enlightened understand that it isn't going to virally apply to
> >>> anything that they develop, but there is still a substantial number of
> >>> companies that simply don't get it.
> >>>
> >>> Finally - I don't see a downside to becoming more permissively
> >>> licensed aside from the work involved. Moving to a single, liberal
> >>> open source license has the potential for us to increase our community
> >>> size, both user and contributor. And from a weird marketing angle,
> >>> it's also likely, as a one time event, to drive some interest in the
> >>> project, as relicensing events tend to be geeky news that attracts
> >>> attention.
> >>>
> >>> Having done it once, I know it's a ton of work to get all of the
> >>> contributors to agree to relicense. That said, what are the collective
> >>> thoughts on this?
> >>>
> >>> --David
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Board mailing list
> >>> Board at gluster.org
> >>> http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Board mailing list
> >> Board at gluster.org
> >> http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -ab
> >
> > Imagination is more important than knowledge --Albert Einstein
>



-- 
-ab

Imagination is more important than knowledge --Albert Einstein
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/advisors/attachments/20130810/683d0015/attachment.html>