New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[RDY] Add LICENSE #883
[RDY] Add LICENSE #883
Conversation
May be useful or ridiculous: http://clabot.github.io/ |
This comment makes a good case for apache: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4518204 Using apache could avoid having to ask new contributors to sign a CLA, I think. Problem with apache is that it is not compatible with GPL v2, but I think GPL v2 programs could just communicate with the API instead of linking to nvimlib. |
I don't have preferences over open source licenses, but we should probably go with apache to avoid any headaches that will certainly come with requiring 83 contributors to sign the CLA
I still didn't had the time to start a detailed discussion about what needs to be done for libnvim, but it's very likely that a large portion of the code will have to be rewritten before we even think about it. In fact, I don't think any libnvim code exists yet, so another license can be chosen once it starts being developed. |
Are these headaches really a big problem?
That's much big of a problem than requiring 83 contributors to sign the If someone who has donated money to the libnvim bounty can't use it in his On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Thiago de Arruda notifications@github.com
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On June 24, 2014 9:59:01 AM GMT+03:00, "Justin M. Keyes" notifications@github.com wrote:
I do not like this last point unless you can add the following things here:
or
(first is better, I do not like all OSI approved licenses).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJNBAEBCgA3BQJTqY9GMBwfMDI7PjIgHTg6PjswOSAQOzU6QTA9NEA+MjhHIDxr |
@ZyX-I That defeats the purpose of all this busy-work. If we have to track down everyone and/or have a debate about relicensing, might as well not have a CLA. Which is fine with me. It just means we better pick a license we want to stick with. It took VLC 4 years to change license. |
On June 24, 2014 6:51:35 PM GMT+03:00, "Justin M. Keyes" notifications@github.com wrote:
Not actually. If I understand correctly without any CLA developers must explicitly agree to relicense their work and just be silent to reject. With my variant they have to explicitly reject relicensing and stay silent to agree. This is a big difference for neovim team which still leaves a good level of control. |
That's the way I understand things too, but IANAL either.
A week doesn't seem like nearly enough time to me--I've had plenty of things come up over the past couple of years that have taken me offline for a week for various reasons. Perhaps it would be better to reach out to the Software Freedom Law Center for some advice? |
Changed to Apache v2 license.
GPL v3 projects may include Apache v2 libs. I do not know of any significant GPL v2 software that may be restricted by Neovim's Apache v2 license. Emacs is GPL v3.
They can use it via msgpack, or by licensing under GPL v3. We didn't make any promise to be compatiable with every license. In fact, we're currently under the Vim license, and that's incompatible with any MIT-licensed project that wants to link to libnvim. So the benefits of Apache outweigh the problems. As @tarruda pointed out, we can discuss a potential license change (or dual license) for libnvim when we get to that point.
Getting 83 people to do anything is nearly impossible. I doubt we will collect even half of the CLAs needed, and the project isn't even 1 year old.
@ZyX-I @jszakmeister In a few hours I will update the CLA to allow a month. edit: done. Please look it over. |
@justinmk thanks for the clarifications. It makes total sense now.
|
CLA is updated with @ZyX-I suggestions. I think is good enough to have some weight without being burdensome by collecting physical addresses or scanned signatures. @philix @aktau et al, I removed your signatures from the first version because it wasn't ready (the CLA text has changed since then). It's ready now . |
I am wondering whether here:
you should say either
Here you should use And there are lots of commas. AFAIK none of them are required, but I am not an expert in this matter: I used to write them a lot too (I heard this is very common among Russian people, should be a common problem always when native language uses lots of commas).
Russian law has support for normal electronic signature via a cryptographic token. I did not bother with receiving one yet and do not know anybody who did (except for some enthusiasts from https://habrahabr.ru). |
It's a reference to a specific instance of potential re-licensing. If the wording difference doesn't have any legal bearing then we should not change it again.
Prefer to avoid changing it unless there is a potential for ambiguity.
I wrote only section 5 and the first sentence of section 1. The other language is taken from Node.js CLA, probably written by a lawyer.
Based on the jQuery discussion and this article and this one, the goal is to demonstrate "due diligence". In our case, we are trying to validate contributions by people whom we know only via github identities and email addresses. The CLA does a reasonable job of that: user is sent a (extremely non-cryptographic) token via email, to prevent false signatures; if user adds the token to the wiki page then we can be reasonably sure that the GitHub user is the one who signed the CLA[1]. I don't know how we would go about verifying crypto tokens against past contributions. However, it could be useful in the future. I was wondering earlier today why GitHub doesn't automatically sign commits. Seems like an obvious, valuable feature. [1] We also aren't dependent on GitHub for authentication, because the wiki is a git repo which we can mirror locally and elsewhere, and contains the same email address that signed the CLA. |
- change to Apache 2.0 - include Vim license in LICENSE - upate README
Changed license to Apache 2.0. Let's get back to programming :) |
👍 |
- change to Apache 2.0 - include Vim license in LICENSE - upate README
Followed the pattern of nodejs/libuv. License is
MIT "expat"Apache 2.0.Moving forward with
MITApache 2.0, but I think it is advisable to to ask contributors to sign a CLA to move existing contributions toMITApache 2.0. Any contributions that are not approved forMITApache 2.0, remain under the Vim license. Existing Vim code and Vim patches also remain under the Vim license.Reference:
Neovim CLA summary: