coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[Trevor Dennis <trevor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:50 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wmrowe@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> On 5/18/2010 11:10 PM, Nasser Dassi wrote:
> >
> > If we are talking about CoApp-compiled software, then we should adopt
> > the most transparent license.  Why?  Because we are not usurping
> > licensing of the source code; we are simply re-packaging the source
> > code... so, broadly speaking, we should protect all other licensing
> > choices by stating that COAPP-COMPILED SOFTWARE HONORS THE LICENSING
> > SCHEME AS CHOSEN BY THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS.
>
> +1!  Other than the fact that we have limited choices (GPL won't magically
> become BSD in our hands), this speaks volumes to what CoApp is seeking to
> do,
> which is honor the creation, and intent of the package authors.
>
>
I was under the impression that the license we use applied ONLY to the tools
that WE create
for analyzing the projects, building the MSI files, and the CoApp Engine
core.  Any work we
do for the other open source projects we package will be strictly under
their original licenses.  Including
any spec files we create for those projects and pass back upstream.

Trev