License (is the AGPL making sense ?)

Issue #171 resolved
Laurent Gautier created an issue

As the title says.

IANAL, but reading (again) about the (many) OSS licenses around and I am now inclined to think that the AGPL might be the most appropriate.

Would a change to the LGPL seem appropriate or wishable ?

Comments (6)

  1. Laurent Gautier reporter

    The consensus on the mailing-list appears to be that the AGPL is too restrictive.

    All contributors will be contacted. I have the following command line to identify them. Please comment is this is missing anything:

    hg log | grep 'user:' | sort -u | sed 's/^user:[ \t]*//'
    
  2. Robert Buchholz

    Can you elaborate on whether there still is a plan to relicense, and if so, what the specific plan is?

  3. Laurent Gautier reporter

    This was discussed on the mailing-list (see this for last part of the thread: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.rpy/3600 ).

    The bottom line was:

    • rpy2 should be (should have been ?) under GPLv2-or-greater because R is released under this license. This will also allow things like distributing rpy2-specific patches for R (and compile R on the fly when installing rpy2).

    • the "intent" is to be (remain) liberal with the /use/ of rpy2 in projects (/modifications/ of rpy2 remain under the GPLv2+ above though). Availability on Pypi, easy installation (easy_install, pip, or whatever might become the installer "du jour").

    Moving forward has been a little slow because of a lot of other things to do IRL.

  4. Log in to comment