License Questions

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

License Questions

kahowell
Can we change the lightblue-client to LGPL? This is what a lot of clients use (ex. MariaDB). LGPL allows proprietary applications to use the library (while still requiring changes to the library to be contributed back).

Why not use AGPL instead of GPL for most of the main project? This would help ensure contributions must be made back, even *in cases where the application is a hosted service*. See tl;drLegal's page on AGPL or your favorite search engine for more info.

Kevin Howell
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License Questions

jewzaam
Administrator
I will consult earlier emails with our legal department and reply later with an answer next week.

On Wed Nov 26 2014 at 3:36:08 PM kevin [via lightblue-dev] <[hidden email]> wrote:
Can we change the lightblue-client to LGPL? This is what a lot of clients use (ex. MariaDB). LGPL allows proprietary applications to use the library (while still requiring changes to the library to be contributed back).

Why not use AGPL instead of GPL for most of the main project? This would help ensure contributions must be made back, even *in cases where the application is a hosted service*. See tl;drLegal's page on AGPL or your favorite search engine for more info.

Kevin Howell



If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://dev.forum.lightblue.io/License-Questions-tp240.html
To start a new topic under lightblue-dev, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from lightblue-dev, click here.
NAML
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License Questions

jewzaam
Administrator
In reply to this post by kahowell
I don't see any particular guidance with respect to license choice.  Any changes, of course, would have to be vetted internally.  Given where we are I am not sure why we would change but if there's sufficient reason I don't see why we couldn't ask.  I think in general the desire is to use well known licences but there's not specific guidance on that list.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License Questions

lcestari
One thing that I thought, would be any problem with our dependencies having different license? For example, maybe a more open license (like the one we are discussing here) could be restricted to the other terms from the our dependencies license.  
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: License Questions

jewzaam
Administrator
As long as the licence of the dependency is compatible with GPLv3 we're ok.  This is why we started documenting dependencies a while ago here: http://www.lightblue.io/dependencies/README.html

On Mon Dec 01 2014 at 12:45:04 PM lcestari [via lightblue-dev] <[hidden email]> wrote:
One thing that I thought, would be any problem with our dependencies having different license? For example, maybe a more open license (like the one we are discussing here) could be restricted to the other terms from the our dependencies license.  


If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
To start a new topic under lightblue-dev, email [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from lightblue-dev, click here.
NAML