Subject: Re: Licensing decision for jenkins jclouds plugin required
To: Fritz Elfert <fritz@fritz-elfert.de>, adrian@jclouds.org,
        mail@vijaykiran.com, andrew.bayer@gmail.com, m.mavlyutov@gmail.com
References: <55ba8045-08a6-8f68-8daf-12b152c432cb@fritz-elfert.de>
From: Monty Taylor <mordred@inaugust.com>
Message-ID: <6e230d89-1c9c-5e82-f979-eabe05ad9df7@inaugust.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 08:19:06 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55ba8045-08a6-8f68-8daf-12b152c432cb@fritz-elfert.de>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="hdb1ctPA1DJWem53Mlwao89TaKSdVtq6U"

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--hdb1ctPA1DJWem53Mlwao89TaKSdVtq6U
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="iLls6O8fhki9vJCbwuh964tQU0VEEF74j";
 protected-headers="v1"
From: Monty Taylor <mordred@inaugust.com>
To: Fritz Elfert <fritz@fritz-elfert.de>, adrian@jclouds.org,
 mail@vijaykiran.com, andrew.bayer@gmail.com, m.mavlyutov@gmail.com
Message-ID: <6e230d89-1c9c-5e82-f979-eabe05ad9df7@inaugust.com>
Subject: Re: Licensing decision for jenkins jclouds plugin required
References: <55ba8045-08a6-8f68-8daf-12b152c432cb@fritz-elfert.de>
In-Reply-To: <55ba8045-08a6-8f68-8daf-12b152c432cb@fritz-elfert.de>

--iLls6O8fhki9vJCbwuh964tQU0VEEF74j
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 11/18/2016 08:29 PM, Fritz Elfert wrote:
> Hi guys,
>=20
> I am writing to you, because you were initiators resp. are
> co-maintainers or major contributors of the JClouds Jenkins Plugin
> https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/JClouds+Plugin
>=20
> I am the current maintainer of this plugin and recently was asked about=

> its license. To my surprise, there was *no* licensing information *at*
> *all* in any of the sources.
>=20
> My thoughts regarding a license were:
> It uses apache-jclouds as its primary functionality and therefore it
> should have the same license (Apache 2.0 License)
>=20
> Before officially choosing this license, I just want to ask for your
> opinion:
>=20
> =3D=3D> Are you ok with choosing Apache 2.0 License for this plugin?
>=20
> I will only choose a license, if I get a simple majority (meaning: at
> least 3 of you should agree). So please just take the time for a short
> answer.
>=20

Apache makes sense to me.



--iLls6O8fhki9vJCbwuh964tQU0VEEF74j--

--hdb1ctPA1DJWem53Mlwao89TaKSdVtq6U
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=m7ai
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--hdb1ctPA1DJWem53Mlwao89TaKSdVtq6U--