Open Stack

On 2016-11-14 09:53:03 -0600 (-0600), Michał Jastrzębski wrote:
[...]
> We don't have any other project with multiple licenses in it? What
> would LICENSE file in github show? Do we need to mention parts of
> GPL there?

We have plenty (I expect it may even be a majority) of repos
containing files under different licenses, though I'm not aware of
examples of one of our repos containing files under a mix of GPLv3
and Apache License v2.0.

A quick search for http://codesearch.openstack.org/?q=gpl&i=1 turns
up the openstack/murano-apps repo which has content aggregated under
a mix of Apache License v2.0, GPLv2 (inherited from Plone), GPLv3
(from Clearwater), and GNU AGPLv3 (SugarCRM); it calls them out with
separate LICENSE files in different subtrees. The openstack/vmtp
repo has an aggregation of Apache License v2.0, BSD and GPLv2 files
with some details in their README.rst explaining the situation. A
number of Apache-licensed repos used to include a tools/rfc.sh
script (copied from Horizon I think?) which claimed in its comment
header to be distributed under GPLv3, though these seem to have been
cleaned up in all non-retired repos more recently. The
openstack/fuel-library repo has a dangerous-looking mix of Puppet
modules under Apache License v2.0 and GPLv2 licenses, so probably
not a shining example of how to go about this.

Hopefully that provides a diverse cross-section of examples.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 949 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20161114/40422afd/attachment.pgp>