Developer:License

Switch ZNC from GPL 2 to another license

See https://github.com/znc/znc/issues/218

What we want?

• Ability to use stuff licensed under Apache license in ZNC
  • Bootstrap
  • log4cxx
• Ability to use stuff licensed under GPL 2 license in ZNC
  • Iris or qwebirc
    • But iris is loaded as separate process, and ZNC communicates with it via socket, so it's not an issue, according to this and this
• Anything else?

The list

GPL 3

Pros:

Cons:

• Incompatible with GPLv2 and thus conflicts with "What we want": [1]

LGPL 3

Pros:

Cons:

• ZNC is not a library (Don't need to be a library to use the "Lesser" GPL license. Jreese (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC))

Apache 2.0

Pros:

• Most liberal license that still protects any project trademarks.

Cons:

BSD (2-clause or 3-clause?)

Pros:

• Extremely liberal license.
• 3-clause license restricts usage of

Cons:

MIT

Pros:

• Extremely liberal license.

Cons:

• Basically identical to 2-clause BSD license.

Comments

• The goal of being able to use both Apache-licensed and GPL2-licensed code in ZNC is not going to be possible. Apache license is not compatible with GPL2-only projects, and GPL2-only is not compatible with GPL3 projects. Jreese (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• I would suggest using one of the more liberal licenses, so that modules can officially be licensed under any terms the author wants to use. LGPL or Apache license probably make the most sense in this regard. Jreese (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Useful links

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses
• http://www.tldrlegal.com/browse
• http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html
• Licenses By Category - Open Source Initiative