Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
changing license from MIT to GPLv3
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
  • Loading branch information
@douglascamata
douglascamata committed Aug 4, 2016
1 parent 0466584 commit 69fb64f
Showing 1 changed file with 671 additions and 5 deletions.
Loading

21 comments on commit 69fb64f

@gweedo767
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is a change from MIT (BSD style license) to GPLv3 even allowed without approval from all code committers?

@douglascamata
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@gweedo767 who said there's no approval?

@gweedo767
Copy link

@gweedo767 gweedo767 commented on 69fb64f Aug 4, 2016 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No one, just asking. I was was just hoping there was documentation of all people with changes in the code approving this modification. It is a pretty major change in rights.

@douglascamata
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@gweedo767 we, as a team, decided we do not want ppl do modify the bot and close the source. We are okay with selling, but all modifications need to be open-sourced. So GPLv3 suits better. No one had any objection against my change (I proposed in our team's slack channel)...

@gweedo767
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't disagree with some variant of the GPL being a good fit. I am saying that re licensing someone's code without approval is often frowned upon. Just because it was discussed by a group in a slack channel doesn't mean it was discussed by all people with commited code to the project.

@douglascamata
Copy link
Member Author

@douglascamata douglascamata commented on 69fb64f Aug 4, 2016 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually MIT was just a wrong choice made by whoever commited it, it should have been GPLv3 since the beginning. Because it allows people to redistribute the bot as closed source. We don't want that, not a single open-source developer who works with Pokemon Go wants people modding and closing source of what they do. We hate closed source bots (:

@gweedo767
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You (and the people in said in Slack channel) might not like BSD style licenses, but some of the people who committed might believe in BSD licensing style rights over GPL style rights. Again, I am not personally against this change, I just want to ensure that all who committed had a chance to voice their opinion about their code.

@fyooree
Copy link

@fyooree fyooree commented on 69fb64f Aug 4, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You can't just change the license like this.

"We have discussed in our slack channel". trolol

As I said in your slack channel --> You have absolutely no clue how to manage a project.

@douglascamata
Copy link
Member Author

@douglascamata douglascamata commented on 69fb64f Aug 4, 2016 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@fyooree excuse me, were you there when we discussed? No, so please, shhh. Not a single member that contributed complained, all agreed with the license change. And whoever complains, we will kindly remove his code from the repository. Mind your own business let us do what we do. As I said, the MIT license was a mistake, what we really was wanted GPLv3. (:

@fyooree
Copy link

@fyooree fyooree commented on 69fb64f Aug 4, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ignorant as always :)

Thats what I meant. Alright so if you remove the code from the repo if someone doesn't want to switch then it's fine but you should contact everyone who committed something personally and ask for approval then.

I'm writing here btw because you don't take criticism very good and ban everyone from slack who makes simple suggestions how to improve ;)

@douglascamata
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@fyooree I only banned one single person from the Slack and I'm sure you weren't that person. I'm ignorant with who deserves it. Go in our dev channel or ask anyone in any of the teams under our organisation if I'm ignorant... You talk like you now things that you doesn't.

@BlueHaunter
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You have to contact all 110 contributors (https://github.com/PokemonGoF/PokemonGo-Bot/graphs/contributors) asking if they approve to have their code relicensed from MIT to GPLv3. That's why some projects make you sign CLAs - so they can relicense or dual license the code. It's not a matter of what the main devs think or if you made a mistake with choosing MIT. It's a legal issue. You cannot relicense someone elses code.

Or if you don't get an approval from someone you can just remove/rewrite their code.

@th3w4y
Copy link
Contributor

@th3w4y th3w4y commented on 69fb64f Aug 4, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@BlueHaunter since previous license was MIT which gives the rights to:
"use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense"
a change to GPL is perfectly legal.

@gweedo767
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@th3w4y is correct on the legality of the issue. This isn't a question of legality though. It is a question of what is "right".

@BlueHaunter
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sublicense is not the same thing as relicense by the way. Sublicense means that the project still needs to be licensed under MIT and also can be licensed under GPLv3 at the same time as opposed to GPLv3 ONLY

@BlueHaunter
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So no. @th3w4y is not correct on the legality of the issue @gweedo767

@glennvgastel
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does it really matter though?

Being a contributor myself, I just want the code to remain open source. GPL or MIT .. it doesn't really make that much of a difference.

if someone wanted to use the source and sell it as a closed source product, they probably wouldn't care about the license anyway.

Just my two cents.

@douglascamata
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@Calcyfer i'm telling them that there is no objection to moving the code from MIT to GPL (note that MIT was force pushed here, nobody was contacted about having their contributions licensed under MIT). In fact we, contributors, love the fact that people will have to open source their modifications. They seem like they don't understand. Maybe they have some closed source version of our bot.

@Pr0Ger
Copy link

@Pr0Ger Pr0Ger commented on 69fb64f Aug 5, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Btw, GPL can't force them to publish a source of their own version anyway if they don't distribute it.

@Calcyfer Yes, it matters. Actually, GPL is more restrictive than MIT, so there are some cases when I can't use it, even if I can release my own code.

@MikeDX
Copy link
Contributor

@MikeDX MikeDX commented on 69fb64f Aug 7, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Whilst my contribution to this project has been small, I wouldn't agree to any change of license like this anyway. For this reason alone I shall no longer be submitting new pull requests and had the original license been GPLv3 I would not have contributed at all.

@fyooree lol

@fyooree
Copy link

@fyooree fyooree commented on 69fb64f Aug 7, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@douglascamata ok fine im not banned but what is this then:
Hi Fyooree,
You recently tried to sign in to PokemonGo-Bot, but it looks like your account for that team is disabled. We're sorry about that!

If you think this was a mistake, please contact a Team Administrator to reactivate the account.

Cheers,

The team at Slack

The ban happened after you insulted my dead mother :/ Shame on you!
I just asked you if it is right to merge bullshit into working things which is breaking the whole bot etc.

Saw you got asked the same stuff by @MikeDX and several others.

I know this is no chat so I'm gone for good. Peace

Please sign in to comment.