michael.hanke at gmail.com
Mon Feb 25 11:47:01 UTC 2008
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 06:22:10PM -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> yeah -- we can't use it unless we are GPLed iirc ;-) that is why so far
> it goes as a separate branch and we discussed possibility to
> double-license with GPL if we finally end up with SG being a primary ML
Right. This is exactly the kind of license incompatibilty I was talking
about. This simplest solution would be if everybody would stop using
non-GPL licenses -- not sure if that happens any time soon ;-)
In the end it all boils down to a simple decision (besides the
philosophical issues). What is more important: 1) Being able to use GPL
software without complicated licensing schemes or 2) be friendly to
other software with more permissive licenses than GPL. If we go GPL we
just move the problem we have with shogun license one level up -- which
is obviously the main intention of the GPL.
For now I do not want to decide against one or the other possibility.
I'd like to wait until the NiPy meeting in Paris. If I see no gain in
staying compatible with SciPy license and simultaneously limiting us in
the use of GPL software I'd happily move on to GPL.
I hope that plan is acceptable for all of us. The last thing I want it
to prevent somebody from contributing something, because we have a
license that is too permissive ;-)
But I take this discussion as a brainstorming about how to do it best
(in every respect) and not as an attempt to find an immediate solution
to a serious problem, right?
GPG key: 1024D/3144BE0F Michael Hanke
More information about the Pkg-exppsy-maintainers