Last modified: 2014-06-05 08:52:27 UTC
operations/puppet uses a few different licenses that are explicitly stated in parts (e.g. different modules). However, that does not seem to be a default license in the root that applies unless otherwise stated.
So if code doesn't specify a license explicitly (which some code in the repo does not), no particular license clearly applies.
What are the existing licenses? And do we have them because people are copying/pasting from other people's puppet confs or just because of random individual choice by our developers?
(Probably incomplete) list:
GPL (at least 2+ and 3+)
I think the main reason for the inconsistency is importing existing open source code. However, I didn't really look into whether the in-house modules are consistently licensed.
It would be good to ask some of the ops people about this. I'll link this on the ops list.
The puppet repository contains many small scripts imported directly from upstream repositories. I imagine not all of them reference where they came from properly. I also wouldn't be surprised if a few other them have been copied to the repository and modified beyond recognition. And still I wouldn't be surprised if some came upstreams which never bothered to set a license.
(In reply to Matthew Flaschen from comment #2)
> It would be good to ask some of the ops people about this. I'll link this
> on the ops list.
That thread on ops@ ("License for operations/puppet") didn't trigger any responses so far.
(In reply to Andre Klapper from comment #4)
> That thread on ops@ ("License for operations/puppet") didn't trigger any
> responses so far.
Yes, the ops and the legal teams will probably have to take the lead on followup. Feel free to ping whoever you think is appropriate.