[e-mailing all known plugin committers]
It occurred to me in a licensing talk at FOSDEM that Foreman plugins are
likely derivative works of Foreman itself, and so should follow its licence.
Plugins are generally extending Foreman's functionality, rather than
interfacing to Foreman. In particular we're extending classes already
defined by Foreman.
We're all currently using the MIT licence for the plugins, but Foreman
is GPLv3+, so I suggest we relicense the plugin projects to GPLv3+ also.
What do you think?
···
--
Dominic Cleal
Red Hat Engineering
> [e-mailing all known plugin committers]
Sorry, I'd missed David out, now included in the discussion.
···
On 05/02/13 13:35, Dominic Cleal wrote:
It occurred to me in a licensing talk at FOSDEM that Foreman plugins are
likely derivative works of Foreman itself, and so should follow its licence.
Plugins are generally extending Foreman’s functionality, rather than
interfacing to Foreman. In particular we’re extending classes already
defined by Foreman.
We’re all currently using the MIT licence for the plugins, but Foreman
is GPLv3+, so I suggest we relicense the plugin projects to GPLv3+ also.
What do you think?
–
Dominic Cleal
Red Hat Engineering
