License Change Consent - wsServer Project

[Theldus]

License change proposal

Hello wsServer contributors,
@silvioprog,
@gloveboxes,
@CleberPeter,
@jfdelnero,
@refutationalist,
@ejoerns,
@hoathienvu8x,
@terziev-viktor,
@roddehugo

I am writing to you to propose a change of license for the wsServer project, from the current GNU General Public License v3.0 (GPLv3) to the MIT License (or equivalent). I am considering this change to make wsServer more inclusive and easier to use by other people.

The MIT License differs from the GPLv3 in the following aspects:

• The MIT License is a permissive license, which means that it allows anyone to use, modify, distribute, or sublicense the software without any restrictions.
• The GPLv3 is a copyleft license, which means that it requires anyone who uses, modifies, distributes, or sublicenses the software to also release their work under the same license.
• The MIT License only requires that the original license and copyright notice be included in any copies or substantial portions of the software.

The change of license would only take place if all the contributors agree to it. Therefore, I kindly ask you to reply to this message with your acknowledgment or objection to the proposed change.

Personally, I do not mind the current license, but I think a more permissive one can help the project reach new heights. However, you do not have to feel pressured to change the license and any opinion is welcome.

You can consult the full text of the two licenses here: MIT License and GNU General Public License v3.0.

Thank you for your attention and your contributions to wsServer.

Sincerely,
Davidson Francis (@Theldus)

[ejoerns]

I have only provided a small fix for the build system; I have no objections to changing the License to MIT.

[roddehugo]

Same thing here only a small typo fix in comments. No objections.
Happy coding

[jfdelnero]

This fine for me, no objection to switch to the MIT License.

[ihmpartners]

No Objections from me

[terziev-viktor]

No objection from my side. Regards, V.T.

…

On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 11:01 PM Davidson Francis ***@***.***> wrote: License change proposal Hello wsServer contributors, @silvioprog <https://github.com/silvioprog>, @gloveboxes <https://github.com/gloveboxes>, @CleberPeter <https://github.com/CleberPeter>, @jfdelnero <https://github.com/jfdelnero>, @refutationalist <https://github.com/refutationalist>, @ejoerns <https://github.com/ejoerns>, @hoathienvu8x <https://github.com/hoathienvu8x>, @terziev-viktor <https://github.com/terziev-viktor>, @roddehugo <https://github.com/roddehugo> I am writing to you to propose a change of license for the wsServer project, from the current *GNU General Public License v3.0 (GPLv3)* to the *MIT License* (or equivalent). I am considering this change to make wsServer more inclusive and easier to use by other people. The MIT License differs from the GPLv3 in the following aspects: - The MIT License is a *permissive* license, which means that it allows anyone to use, modify, distribute, or sublicense the software without any restrictions. - The GPLv3 is a *copyleft* license, which means that it requires anyone who uses, modifies, distributes, or sublicenses the software to also release their work under the same license. - The MIT License only requires that the original *license and copyright notice* be included in any copies or substantial portions of the software. The change of license would only take place if all the contributors agree to it. Therefore, I kindly ask you to reply to this message with your *acknowledgment* or *objection* to the proposed change. Personally, I do not mind the current license, but I think a more permissive one can help the project reach new heights. However, you do not have to feel pressured to change the license and any opinion is welcome. You can consult the full text of the two licenses here: MIT License <https://mit-license.org/> and GNU General Public License v3.0 <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html>. Thank you for your attention and your contributions to wsServer. Sincerely, Davidson Francis ***@***.*** <https://github.com/Theldus>) — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#84>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC6OMZPDV4F7BQFQGHROAO3YHTSCDAVCNFSM6AAAAABAFBK6EWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGAZDENZRGM2TCNA> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[refutationalist]

Given my minimal contribution, I think it would be unwarranted for me to raise an objection. So formally: no objection. Please feel free to do as you see fit with your project.

I will take a moment to share my opinion, however. I would suggest taking a good look at the LGPL before moving to MIT. While a more permissive license might take the project to newer heights, under MIT those heights need not be shared with us. Experience has taught me not to deal in good will alone when it comes to software, and so I avoid MIT.

Sorry for the late reply, I have been ill.

[Theldus]

Hi @refutationalist,

No worries, I hope you're feeling better now.

Concerning the license change, I don't mind much personally, but for some people, using GPL can be a very limiting factor. For example, Android uses ToyBox (0BSD) instead of BusyBox (GPLv2), and Apple has recently been avoiding anything GPL, removing it from macOS, etc.

In terms of selecting a specific license, I suggested MIT because it's widely accepted, but I'm open to other suggestions.

LGPL sounds interesting, especially in the sense that it can be used even in commercial software, as long as there are no modifications to the library (although it seems to have some limitations regarding the form of linking, static vs dynamic).

Still on LGPL, do you know if moving from GPLv3 to LGPL would still require approval from all committers? I ask because I have 6 acks (out of 9 total contributors), and there's a real chance I won't get all the approvals. Moving to LGPL (without requiring approvals) in this scenario might be a good option too.

[silvioprog]

Same here, no objection from my side. 🚀

[hoathienvu8x]

Hi @Theldus sorry for reply late, I have only provided a small fix thus this fine for me, I have no objection to switch to the MIT License.

Happy new year :D

[Theldus]

Hi @hoathienvu8x,
Thanks for your feedback, and don't worry, there's no deadline or anything like that for this issue.

Happy new year guys =)

[jsommr]

So close to an MIT license for this excellent library! @CleberPeter & @gloveboxes, please let us know if you're willing to change the license of your code. It would be much appreciated.