RFD 164 Open Source Policy

[bcantrill]

This is an issue to discuss RFD 164 Open Source Policy. Licensing discussion, engage!

[siepkes]

Great write-up!

While not super common outside of the Java world it might be worth adding the Eclipse Public License. I'm sure Joyent has some Java projects (libraries atleast) and within the Java world it's a common license. As stated most of what Eclipse does is Java based but they also have interesting software that is non-Java. For example Eclipse Paho (MQTT library) or Eclipse Mosquitto (MQTT Broker).

From what I understand (I'm not a lawyer so definitely don't take my word for it) the EPL is somewhat comparable to the CDDL (file based copy left).

[bcantrill]

Yes, thank you! Added!

[leecalcote]

If a contributor license agreement is required, the OSCO should be consulted. Most CLAs are harmless, but formal OSCO permission will regrettably be required.

It'd be insightful to understand what criteria is used for evaluation of a given CLA.

[cburroughs]

• Are all existing uses of "you should ask" licenses grandfathered in?
• How are the OSCO decisions documented so they can be referred back to later?
• How does one propose adding a blanket license or other changes to the policy, or this RFD the living document forever?
• Are packages in pkgsrc "part of a service or software offering"? Are packages installed in images we distribute?
• in npm-speak, are devDepdencies "use" or part of the software?
• Is "X11" equivalent to MIT? Is curl's license?