Alternative decision question for GPL/MIT
We've been considering the point raised about the decision questions for the tree in order for agencies to select between GPL and MIT from the default set.
At present the question is:
>"should a person who adapts the code and distributes it to others be required to license the adaptations for re-use by others"
We put forward here an alternative based on @donchristie 's et al. feedback.
>"if a person adapts the code and distributes the adapted code to others, would it be beneficial to government, taxpayers and society to require that the adaptations (e.g., enhancements) are made available for re-use?"
We also put forward a further footnote for consideration alongside this alternative wording to ensure agencies are aware of their options:
>"Agencies should note that, even if an agency decides to apply the GPL to its source code, the agency can always allow particular developers to use it under different terms if the agency wishes (as long as the agency is the copyright owner). It is conceivable, for example, that a New Zealand-based proprietary developer may wish to use the code in commercial software for which it has a strong export market. In that sort of case, the agency may be happy to allow the developer to use the code under more permissive terms (i.e., without a sharealike obligation)."
I've raised a pull request on GitHub to this affect, I'll amend after discussion here before merging in should we opt to go with this.
Thanks again for the great input all. :thumbsup: Should have a first revision in document format once these last few points have been worked through.