[Commotion-dev] license and copyright assignment?

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

None of the licenses discussed so far put any restriction on commercial
use.  To support its use in proprietary software, it would have to be
LGPL, Apache, or BSD.  olsrd is already BSDish, and Mesh Tether is based
on a lot of GPLv3 code, so that will need to be the same.  OlsrInfo can
be anything since that's all written under Commotion's banner.  In terms
of issuing separate licenses for purchase, that can't be done for Mesh
Tether since there are outside copyright holders for code that is GPLv3.

.hc

On 06/08/2012 09:32 PM, Sascha Meinrath wrote:
> I want to ensure that Commotion is (and always will be) free for personal,
> non-profit, etc. use.  I would also love if there was a mechanism to ensure that
> companies that wanted to license Commotion for their own products could do so in
> return for paying back into the open source community.  I'm not sure what that
> sort of license would look like, but would love to hear ideas on how to ensure
> that those who earn income off of Commotion give back to the continued
> development of these technologies.
> 
> --Sascha
> 
> On 06/08/2012 05:06 PM, Ben West wrote:
>> The underlying OpenWRT codebase uses GPL, would that be the suggested
>> choice for commotion-openwrt?
>> http://wiki.openwrt.org/about/license
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner
>> <hans at guardianproject.info> wrote:
>>>
>>> Which license should I be using for the Commotion code?  I'm fine with
>>> GPL, LGPL, Apache, and BSD.  When a piece of code I've worked on is
>>> based on another package I generally find it makes the most sense to
>>> keep the license the same as the original.
>>>
>>> Also, who should the copyright be assigned to?  OTI? New America? FSF? me?
>>>
>>> .hc
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Commotion-dev mailing list
>>> Commotion-dev at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/commotion-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>>