I'll take a look into this. charm-helpers seems to suffer a bit from license schizophrenia. LP lists it as GPLv3, the code has both GPL and LGPL license in root and setup.py lists it as AGPL. I will investigate this a bit more and email the list in a separate thread when this is resolved.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:07 AM Mark Shuttleworth <[email protected]> wrote: > > OK, let's explore moving that to LGPL which I think would be more > appropriate for things like that and layers. > > Mark > > On 09/02/16 12:04, John Meinel wrote: > > I agree, I was a bit surprised that charmhelpers was AGPL instead of > LGPL. > > I think it makes sense as you still would contribute back to the layers > you > > touch, but it doesn't turn your entire charm into GPL. > > > > John > > =-> > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Mark Shuttleworth <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> On 09/02/16 09:25, John Meinel wrote: > >>> The more edge case is that charmhelpers itself is AGPL, so if your > charm > >>> imported charmhelpers, then that is more of a grey area. You likely > need > >> to > >>> open source the actual charm, which sets up configuration, etc of the > >>> program. However, you still don't have to give out the source to the > >>> program you are configuring. > >> For stuff that we publish as libraries, we tend to prefer LGPL, which > >> doesn't force a license on the end product or codebase. So if we need to > >> revisit the charmhelpers license we will do so. > >> > >> Mark > >> > >> > > > -- > Juju mailing list > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju >
-- Juju mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju
