Skip to content
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

License #25

Closed
spentelow opened this issue Mar 17, 2021 · 4 comments
Closed

License #25

spentelow opened this issue Mar 17, 2021 · 4 comments

Comments

@spentelow
Copy link
Collaborator

Examine the license for your project and consider whether this is the choice you want to make, or whether you want to change the license. Discuss and reason the license choice by opening issues in both Python and R repositories. As it is likely to be a very similar discussion for both projects, one of these issues can just link to the other issue where it is thoroughly dicussed.

@spentelow spentelow added this to the Milestone 4 milestone Mar 17, 2021
@spentelow
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I would like our package to be easily available for anyone to use. I think it is important that we choose a license that people in the open source community are familiar and comfortable with because an unfamiliar license could be a barrier to some. Based on those two considerations, I think that either the MIT license or one of the GNU licenses would be a suitable choice.

The package we have created is useful but its functionality would not be difficult to reproduce. Because of that, I don't think there is much point in forcing our choice of license on any works which include the code we have created since the point of our function is more about convenience than a unique implementation. That being the case, I would prefer to stick with the more permissive MIT license over one of the GNU licenses.

@chenzhao2020
Copy link
Collaborator

I agree with you. As the purpose of creating our packages is to let people use and make contributions to our project in a simple and easy way, we can use MIT license to make it simple and permissive. In addition, the MIT license does including the limitations of liability and states it does not provide any warrenty. In this case, it protects our basic rights as the authors. I vote on sticking with MIT license.

@chiragrank
Copy link
Collaborator

Upon looking at different licenses at choosealicense, I too find the MIT license to be more suitable as it provides the required flexibility to users and sufficient protections to us. I do not find a need for additional restrictions for our package. As we all agree on not changing it, we can finalize it.

@chenzhao2020
Copy link
Collaborator

Finalized the license choice with MIT license without changing.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants