Yes, will do. If Joseph agrees, then I'll submit the change to his
template plugin and then we can copy it into the others.
···
On 05/02/13 15:12, Oved Ourfalli wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Dominic Cleal"
>> To: "Joseph Magen" , "Oved Ourfalli" , "Mikael Fridh" ,
>> "Ohad Levy" , "David Caro Estevez"
>> Cc: "foreman-dev"
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 3:47:02 PM
>> Subject: Re: Foreman plugin licensing
>>
>> On 05/02/13 13:35, Dominic Cleal wrote:
>>> [e-mailing all known plugin committers]
>>
>> Sorry, I'd missed David out, now included in the discussion.
>>
>>> 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?
>>
> I think we should do that.
> That was just some cut+paste from the original plugin repo (which wasn't written by me).
> Can you give some guidelines on how to do so? (I guess we just need to replace the LICENSE file, but if you can send me the right one it would be great).
–
Dominic Cleal
Red Hat Engineering
Yes Dominic, I agree. You can submit the change. Joseph
···
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dominic Cleal"
To: "Oved Ourfalli"
Cc: "foreman-dev" , "Joseph Magen" , "Mikael Fridh" , "Ohad Levy" , "David Caro Estevez"
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 5:21:05 PM
Subject: Re: Foreman plugin licensing
On 05/02/13 15:12, Oved Ourfalli wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: “Dominic Cleal” dcleal@redhat.com
To: “Joseph Magen” jmagen@redhat.com, “Oved Ourfalli” oourfali@redhat.com, “Mikael Fridh” frimik@gmail.com,
“Ohad Levy” ohadlevy@redhat.com, “David Caro Estevez” dcaroest@redhat.com
Cc: “foreman-dev” foreman-dev@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 3:47:02 PM
Subject: Re: Foreman plugin licensing
On 05/02/13 13:35, Dominic Cleal wrote:
[e-mailing all known plugin committers]
Sorry, I’d missed David out, now included in the discussion.
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?
I think we should do that.
That was just some cut+paste from the original plugin repo (which wasn’t written by me).
Can you give some guidelines on how to do so? (I guess we just need to replace the LICENSE file, but if you can send me the right one it would be great).
Yes, will do. If Joseph agrees, then I’ll submit the change to his
template plugin and then we can copy it into the others.
–
Dominic Cleal
Red Hat Engineering
