[Greenhouse] License for Greenhouse and Ubuntu DAT

[David Lu]

Cc'ing the Greenhouse mailing list for this discussion.

The main reason for using the Apache License 2.0 is that it is more
permissive so people are more likely to adopt the software. There are plans
to change the license of OpenHatch from AGPL3 to Apache License 2.0.


On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Daniel Holbach
<daniel.holbach at ubuntu.com>wrote:

> Hey,
>
>
> On 18.09.2013 01:48, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 6:57 PM, David Lu <daveeloo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I noticed that there isn't a license for the Ubuntu DAT. I'm packaging
>>> Greenhouse right now and would like to use an Apache License 2.0. Would
>>> that
>>> be okay with you guys?
>>>
>>
>> It's true that we don't have any copyright headers on the files or a
>> COPYING file in the project. This is just because when the project was
>> started, it seemed unlikely that anyone would be reusing the code
>> anytime soon, mostly an oversight on my part. After all, it's not even
>> technically released. If you look at the Launchpad project it lists
>> GNU Affero GPL v3 as the license. [0] I could certainly be convinced
>> to use a different license, but I do tend to have a strong preference
>> for "copyleft" licenses. It looks like openhatch.org is also licensed
>> AGPL3. [1] Any specific reasons you were thinking about  Apache
>> License 2.0?
>>
>> Daniel, or anyone else, have an opinion?
>>
>
> No, I'm +1 unless there are any other strong opinions.
>
> Have a great day,
>  Daniel
>
> --
> Get involved in Ubuntu development! developer.ubuntu.com/packaging
> Follow @ubuntudev on identi.ca/twitter.com/**facebook.com/G+<http://identi.ca/twitter.com/facebook.com/G+>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openhatch.org/pipermail/greenhouse/attachments/20130918/db70cb81/attachment.html>