Re: [htdig-dev] HtDig Group Charter, Licensing & LGPL

[Gilles D. <gr...@sc...>]

Hi, Neal.  Although we spoke privately, I'm posting my thoughts here
in the hopes of stimulating further discussion on this topic.  I think
it would be very valuable to ht://Dig's future progress if we took some
of the steps you're proposing.

According to Neal Richter:
> [From Geoff Hutchison]
> >I'd be interested in any legal opinion about
> >the "ht://Dig Group" issue since there's currently no obvious "owner" of
> >all of the ht://Dig code.
> 
> We may be able to help there!
...
> To use and contribute effectively to HtDig and the HtDig group we need:
> a) To use libhtdig under the LGPL terms
> b) To get HtDig to formalize its structure and decision making processes
> so that any LGPL relicense (for libhtdig) granted is beyond legal
> challenge.

I guess the "beyond legal challenge" part is what makes this task sound
a bit ominous.  Certainly, any major contributors, not the least of which
is Andrew Scherpbier (the original author), would have to give their OK
to this, either directly or indirectly (i.e. via the proposed steering
committee).

However, I'm very encouraged by the interest that Right Now is taking in
helping out the ht://Dig project, and if all that's standing in the way
is relicensing under LGPL, I'm all for clearing away that obstacle.

> Issues to consider for a charter:
> 1) Election of Steering Committee (now effectively those people with CVS
>    commit access)
> 2) Rules and Procedures for the election and other decision making tasks
> 3) Rules and Procedures for working with Corporations
> 4) Governance of Copyright & Licensing
> 5) Code contribution procedures
> 
> The charter can be as relaxed and democratic as you wish.

Relaxed sounds good to me.  I for one tend to see red when I hear terms
like Steering Committee, but I realise that this doesn't have to require
a whole lot of tedium for those involved.  It's probably just a more
formalised version of the "developer votes" we already do.  And, there
shouldn't have to be a whole lot of decisions we need to deliberate on,
once the initial relicensing is done.

> For RNT point #4 is the important one.  We are trying to establish if the
> group is willing to license the HtDig software under both the GPL and
> LGPL.  GPL for standard usage, LGPL for usage with 'libhtdig'.  To
> accomplish this goal, a steering committee would need to approve such a
> move within the bounds of a group charter.

Further on this point, as Neal pointed out, the mifluz code integrated
in ht://Dig was based on earlier ht://Dig code, so any relicensing of
ht://Dig should be able to apply to mifluz as well.  What's more, since
mifluz is a library, licensing it under LGPL seems like a "good fit".

The only other thing to consider is the Berkeley DB code, which seems to
be licensed not only under the University of California, but also Harvard
University and Sleepycat Software.  However, they all seem to have pretty
simple and similar terms to their licenses, none of which would appear to
conflict with LGPL.  (As Neal pointed out to me, U of C's license doesn't
conflict, as other Berkeley software apparently has been licensed under
LGPL.)

> A first step could be to call for a vote to ratify the current developers
> with CVS commit access as the steering committee and go forward with
> drafting a charter patterned after the Apache/Debian/FreeBSD etc.

It would probably make sense to invite Andrew to take part in this
committee, if he's interested, even though he's not currently one of the
people with CVS access (at least I don't think so).  He may be more than
happy to leave this to others, but that should be his call.

-- 
Gilles R. Detillieux              E-mail: <gr...@sc...>
Spinal Cord Research Centre       WWW:    http://www.scrc.umanitoba.ca/~grdetil
Dept. Physiology, U. of Manitoba  Phone:  (204)789-3766
Winnipeg, MB  R3E 3J7  (Canada)   Fax:    (204)789-3930