On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Luke Welling <lwelling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
The questions:
Is my assumption that by default we put everything under GPL2 right?
Are other FS/OSS licences OK to use?
Generally, I think the consensus has been "GPLv2 preferred, but any
FLOSS license is probably ok." I know there's more than a few extensions
that are Apache or MIT licensed.
How paranoid are we? ie do we make a good faith effort
at getting it right,
or do we refer questions to internal counsel for a slower but safer answer?
We just assume good faith :)
In this case my inclination is to licence the whole
extension (containing
the external library) as Apache2.0 but I'm happy to defer to normal process
if there is one.
If you can't use an Apache library in a GPL extension, then licensing
the whole extension as Apache is probably fine.
-Chad