[Advisors] Thoughts on a license change.

David Nalley david at gnsa.us
Mon Aug 12 15:39:08 UTC 2013

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:20 AM, John Mark Walker <johnmark at gluster.org> wrote:
> ________________________________
> Yes, ideally. How ever, linking to older GPLv2 code may be problematic with
> Apache License. QEMU is GPLv2.
> Of the reasons against, this is the one that gives me pause. Our signature
> feature that went into 3.4 was the QEMU integration. We cannot, under any
> circumstance, do anything to jeopardize that collaboration. I'm not entirely
> sure what the consequences are of linking Apache-licensed code to GPLv2
> libraries. I can ask for a report on that and present the results here.

Yes, please see if Mr Fontana will render an opinion for us.

> Otherwise, I'm generally in favor of the move. I used to be a huge fan of
> copyleft, but over the years I've seen that community governance and
> development process seem to mean a whole lot more than which license a
> project chooses.
> I'd be very curious if anyone here strongly disagrees with a move to the
> Apache License 2.0, the QEMU integration issue notwithstanding.


More information about the Advisors mailing list