Licensing/Structure

Darren Young darren at younghome.com
Wed Sep 6 07:35:56 PDT 2000


Since the system as a whole is based on Linux perhaps it should be
GPL. Are there any legal restraints when it comes to the GPL that require
anyone that builds on top of Linux to GPL their portions?

On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Bryan Dumm wrote:

> Alfs licensing/structure
> 
> Since these issues are going to come up anyways, I thought
> I would push it out there. What do we do about about
> licensing and our structure?
> 
> On Licensing
> 
> >From the current setup, the only thing I can see us
> licensing, is the profiler and all the associated
> code that goes along with it.
> 
> Should we choose a GPL license for the profiler? Or
> do we care what people do with it and we go with a
> BSD license? Or maybe we perform the QT move and
> have three licenses. :) I dunno what we should do, but...
> 
> I figure we will have both open source and proprietary,
> maybe even binary only programs that we will want to use
> alfs. Will there be any issues on such things? How can we 
> avoid problems later on?
> 
> Other licensing issues?
> 
> 
> On Structure
> 
> How should we organize ourselves? Should we use
> CVS? Who gets write access? Why? How are bug
> reports submitted? Who is responsible for them?
> Who wants to do more than just test the system,
> and develop the profiler, our main frontend,
> backend? How can we divide work between us, while
> still maintaining some sense of order? Who wants
> to do the website? After we get something
> built/working, should anyone from our group
> publicize our efforts? I mean what if some
> reporter wants to talk to someone? Who can write
> the documentation for alfs? What other questions
> should we be asking?
> 
> Bryan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 






More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list