Add an official license to VVV #346

Closed
jeremyfelt opened this Issue May 4, 2014 · 93 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@jeremyfelt
Member

jeremyfelt commented May 4, 2014

Is anyone well versed on this?

  1. Do we need a license?
    • I think yes to explicitly indicate “we’re open source” versus the default terms and assumptions provided by GitHub.
  2. If yes, what should the license be?
    • GPLv2 or later seems like a good answer at first glance, but maybe something along the lines of MIT is a better fit. I don't want to restrict anything.
  3. Does anything provided in the default VVV package conflict?
    • There was a time when we included a few things as a whole in the package, but now they are all pulled in via script.

@jeremyfelt jeremyfelt added this to the 1.2 Release milestone May 4, 2014

@jeremyfelt jeremyfelt added the docs label May 4, 2014

@aaronjorbin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aaronjorbin

aaronjorbin May 4, 2014

Contributor
  1. Yes. Ambiguity is best when it is avoided.

  2. Both GPLv2 and MIT are good choices in my book. http://choosealicense.com/ says that MIT is best for when you want "Simple and Permissive" while GPL is best for when you "care about sharing improvements".

  3. https://github.com/Varying-Vagrant-Vagrants/VVV/blob/master/config/wordpress-config/wp-tests-config.php has it's roots in WordPress. Not sure if that is enough to require us to be GPL. Of course, IANAL.

Contributor

aaronjorbin commented May 4, 2014

  1. Yes. Ambiguity is best when it is avoided.

  2. Both GPLv2 and MIT are good choices in my book. http://choosealicense.com/ says that MIT is best for when you want "Simple and Permissive" while GPL is best for when you "care about sharing improvements".

  3. https://github.com/Varying-Vagrant-Vagrants/VVV/blob/master/config/wordpress-config/wp-tests-config.php has it's roots in WordPress. Not sure if that is enough to require us to be GPL. Of course, IANAL.

@jeremyfelt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeremyfelt

jeremyfelt May 6, 2014

Member

The WordPress config is an interesting point and worth thinking through. I've often wondered the same thing about other config files for nginx, MySQL, etc...

I've thought about using GPL quite a bit, but I'm hesitant to think about sharing restrictions on a conglomeration of scripts and config files. Overall, I'd probably still lean that way.

Worth noting in this project space:

  • Salt, Puppet, Chef, and Docker are Apache 2.0
  • Ansible is GPLv3
  • VirtualBox is GPLv2
  • Vagrant is MIT
Member

jeremyfelt commented May 6, 2014

The WordPress config is an interesting point and worth thinking through. I've often wondered the same thing about other config files for nginx, MySQL, etc...

I've thought about using GPL quite a bit, but I'm hesitant to think about sharing restrictions on a conglomeration of scripts and config files. Overall, I'd probably still lean that way.

Worth noting in this project space:

  • Salt, Puppet, Chef, and Docker are Apache 2.0
  • Ansible is GPLv3
  • VirtualBox is GPLv2
  • Vagrant is MIT
@simonwheatley

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@simonwheatley

simonwheatley May 21, 2014

Contributor
  1. IMO Yes we do, otherwise it's source which happens to be openly visible, not Free Open Source Software.
  2. I tend to go GPL v2 for everything myself, but IANAL (or anything but an amateur software licensing spectator)
  3. As far as I can see (insert usual caveats here) we don't have anything which forces us to be GPL. I would argue that the WordPress config bits @aaronjorbin refers to are not something VVV is integrating with, therefore not something which "infects" VVV … but I'm going to back down on this argument quite quickly in a heavy software licensing discussion.

Overall, from me, +1 for GPL and I'm happy to retrospectively contribute any code under that licence.

Contributor

simonwheatley commented May 21, 2014

  1. IMO Yes we do, otherwise it's source which happens to be openly visible, not Free Open Source Software.
  2. I tend to go GPL v2 for everything myself, but IANAL (or anything but an amateur software licensing spectator)
  3. As far as I can see (insert usual caveats here) we don't have anything which forces us to be GPL. I would argue that the WordPress config bits @aaronjorbin refers to are not something VVV is integrating with, therefore not something which "infects" VVV … but I'm going to back down on this argument quite quickly in a heavy software licensing discussion.

Overall, from me, +1 for GPL and I'm happy to retrospectively contribute any code under that licence.

@jeremyfelt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeremyfelt

jeremyfelt May 22, 2014

Member

Ok, I'm leaning GPLv2 or later to go with the familiar.

Does anybody know how this affects existing forks of VVV? I'd imagine that those inherit the license that existed at the time of the fork. I don't have a problem with that, but don't want to make it difficult on anyone else either.

Member

jeremyfelt commented May 22, 2014

Ok, I'm leaning GPLv2 or later to go with the familiar.

Does anybody know how this affects existing forks of VVV? I'd imagine that those inherit the license that existed at the time of the fork. I don't have a problem with that, but don't want to make it difficult on anyone else either.

@jeremyfelt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeremyfelt

jeremyfelt May 22, 2014

Member

Ping @westonruter for thoughts as well. :)

Member

jeremyfelt commented May 22, 2014

Ping @westonruter for thoughts as well. :)

@westonruter

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@westonruter

westonruter May 22, 2014

Member

For my open source projects, I'm a fan of dual licensing, following the model of jQuery, which is dual-licensed GPL/MIT (or at least it used to be). Forkers can choose whichever license fits their use case.

Member

westonruter commented May 22, 2014

For my open source projects, I'm a fan of dual licensing, following the model of jQuery, which is dual-licensed GPL/MIT (or at least it used to be). Forkers can choose whichever license fits their use case.

@jeremyfelt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeremyfelt

jeremyfelt May 22, 2014

Member

Interesting. I did not know of this magical world and I kind of like it.

@aaronjorbin, @simonwheatley - Dual licensed as GPLv2 or later and MIT?

Member

jeremyfelt commented May 22, 2014

Interesting. I did not know of this magical world and I kind of like it.

@aaronjorbin, @simonwheatley - Dual licensed as GPLv2 or later and MIT?

@ericmann

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ericmann

ericmann May 22, 2014

Contributor

My vote would be MIT or at least dual license. GPL forces itself on derivatives, and I'm all for giving forkers the freedom to use whatever OS license they choose. That's why I use MIT where I can and only GPL where required by existing licenses.

Contributor

ericmann commented May 22, 2014

My vote would be MIT or at least dual license. GPL forces itself on derivatives, and I'm all for giving forkers the freedom to use whatever OS license they choose. That's why I use MIT where I can and only GPL where required by existing licenses.

@itsananderson

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@itsananderson

itsananderson May 22, 2014

Contributor

+1 @ericmann. Some large companies* would think twice about contributing to a GPL project or integrating it into their services, but are much more friendly toward MIT.

  • * Source: I work for Microsoft**
  • ** This comment represents my opinion, not Microsoft's ;)
Contributor

itsananderson commented May 22, 2014

+1 @ericmann. Some large companies* would think twice about contributing to a GPL project or integrating it into their services, but are much more friendly toward MIT.

  • * Source: I work for Microsoft**
  • ** This comment represents my opinion, not Microsoft's ;)
@simonwheatley

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@simonwheatley

simonwheatley May 22, 2014

Contributor

I'm happy to go with dual licensing.

Contributor

simonwheatley commented May 22, 2014

I'm happy to go with dual licensing.

@pento

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pento

pento May 22, 2014

I'm strongly in favour of GPL only.

I'm against MIT, for the same reason that @ericmann is for it - it doesn't force forks or derivative projects to be an open source license. I'm yet to come across a GPL project that has suffered from this requirement. To use the Microsoft example, if a company wants to integrate an open source project into their profit-making machine, the least they can do is contribute any improvements they make back to the community - the GPL just enforces that. Without the GPL, I'd suggest that they're more likely to never bother contributing back.

As a side note unrelated to the specific license you choose, any license change you make will probably need permission from all contributors to the project to date.

pento commented May 22, 2014

I'm strongly in favour of GPL only.

I'm against MIT, for the same reason that @ericmann is for it - it doesn't force forks or derivative projects to be an open source license. I'm yet to come across a GPL project that has suffered from this requirement. To use the Microsoft example, if a company wants to integrate an open source project into their profit-making machine, the least they can do is contribute any improvements they make back to the community - the GPL just enforces that. Without the GPL, I'd suggest that they're more likely to never bother contributing back.

As a side note unrelated to the specific license you choose, any license change you make will probably need permission from all contributors to the project to date.

@ericmann

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ericmann

ericmann May 22, 2014

Contributor

Let's stop using hypothetical examples here, particularly with Microsoft as the scapegoat. For the record, that particular for-profit company has already contributed a significant amount back to the Vagrant project itself. Also, Vagrant itself is licensed as MIT, so there's no reason they or anyone else is required to contribute back their changes.

I love open source, but I also recognize there are situations where viral OS licenses (like the GPL) are inappropriate: namely many government, healthcare, and financial environments. Applying a GPL license to our project will effectively cut out potential contributions from those projects. I'd rather risk a greedy for-profit using our software within a closed environment than cut off a large part of the community like that.

Contributor

ericmann commented May 22, 2014

Let's stop using hypothetical examples here, particularly with Microsoft as the scapegoat. For the record, that particular for-profit company has already contributed a significant amount back to the Vagrant project itself. Also, Vagrant itself is licensed as MIT, so there's no reason they or anyone else is required to contribute back their changes.

I love open source, but I also recognize there are situations where viral OS licenses (like the GPL) are inappropriate: namely many government, healthcare, and financial environments. Applying a GPL license to our project will effectively cut out potential contributions from those projects. I'd rather risk a greedy for-profit using our software within a closed environment than cut off a large part of the community like that.

@jeremyfelt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeremyfelt

jeremyfelt May 22, 2014

Member

Great comments, thanks everyone. There's a lesson to be learned in all of this to not wait 1.5 years to pick a license. :)

As a side note unrelated to the specific license you choose, any license change you make will probably need permission from all contributors to the project to date.

This is an excellent point, @pento. I hadn't thought about it from that angle yet. We do need to get everyone on board for a final decision.

I'm going to continue doing some reading. I think at some point we'll need to lay down our options and start poking contributors directly.

Continued discussion is welcome!

Member

jeremyfelt commented May 22, 2014

Great comments, thanks everyone. There's a lesson to be learned in all of this to not wait 1.5 years to pick a license. :)

As a side note unrelated to the specific license you choose, any license change you make will probably need permission from all contributors to the project to date.

This is an excellent point, @pento. I hadn't thought about it from that angle yet. We do need to get everyone on board for a final decision.

I'm going to continue doing some reading. I think at some point we'll need to lay down our options and start poking contributors directly.

Continued discussion is welcome!

@jeremyfelt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeremyfelt

jeremyfelt May 22, 2014

Member

Other notes / reads of interest:

there are situations where viral OS licenses (like the GPL) are inappropriate: namely many government, healthcare, and financial environments.

@ericmann - would you mind expanding on this a bit? I'm not sure about the term viral, even though I'm learning that it's been used to describe the GPL over the years. From my understanding—somewhat from GNU's US government note—use of VVV and contributions back to VVV would likely be fine for those groups if licensed under GPL. The restrictions would come from public redistribution of modified source or software that incorporates VVV.

Member

jeremyfelt commented May 22, 2014

Other notes / reads of interest:

there are situations where viral OS licenses (like the GPL) are inappropriate: namely many government, healthcare, and financial environments.

@ericmann - would you mind expanding on this a bit? I'm not sure about the term viral, even though I'm learning that it's been used to describe the GPL over the years. From my understanding—somewhat from GNU's US government note—use of VVV and contributions back to VVV would likely be fine for those groups if licensed under GPL. The restrictions would come from public redistribution of modified source or software that incorporates VVV.

@ericmann

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ericmann

ericmann May 22, 2014

Contributor

The GPL is called "viral" because any derivative projects must also be licensed under the GPL (i.e. the license "infects" derivative works).

The issue with GPL software is one of distribution, but not necessarily to the public. If I use GPL software (i.e. WordPress) to host your website, you as the consumer never receive the software itself - therefore I don't necessarily have to give you a copy of the source code. This is how companies like Automattic and WPEngine can use WordPress (GPL) in specially modified forms (also GPL) for hosting without being required to give their modified copies to their customers.

Likewise, a GPL-licensed version of VVV used to spin up a remote environment would not trigger the distribution/source-availability clause of the license for anyone who uses the environment through, say, a web browser.

However, the tricky part comes in when dealing with development teams. If my hosting tools are GPL, and I hire you as a contractor to work on the project, I have to give you access to the code itself. Under the GPL, you're now entitled to your own copy and have the right to distribute that copy on your own.

So, if VVV (licensed as GPL) is being used by a dev team in-house, and they need to add proprietary magic to it to simulate their internal hosting environment, the derived VM generation package would also need to be licensed under the GPL. Developers, either in-house or subcontracted, would then have the right to repurpose and redistribute this otherwise proprietary code. I can tell you from personal experience this will not fly in many healthcare, gov't, and financial organizations since, even though they use open source (read: MIT, BSD, Apache licenses), they still have code that is necessarily private and proprietary.

Also of note: MIT is "GPL compatible" so we could license VVV as MIT, then forkers could distribute their own forks as GPLv2/3. We can't do it the other way around, though.

Contributor

ericmann commented May 22, 2014

The GPL is called "viral" because any derivative projects must also be licensed under the GPL (i.e. the license "infects" derivative works).

The issue with GPL software is one of distribution, but not necessarily to the public. If I use GPL software (i.e. WordPress) to host your website, you as the consumer never receive the software itself - therefore I don't necessarily have to give you a copy of the source code. This is how companies like Automattic and WPEngine can use WordPress (GPL) in specially modified forms (also GPL) for hosting without being required to give their modified copies to their customers.

Likewise, a GPL-licensed version of VVV used to spin up a remote environment would not trigger the distribution/source-availability clause of the license for anyone who uses the environment through, say, a web browser.

However, the tricky part comes in when dealing with development teams. If my hosting tools are GPL, and I hire you as a contractor to work on the project, I have to give you access to the code itself. Under the GPL, you're now entitled to your own copy and have the right to distribute that copy on your own.

So, if VVV (licensed as GPL) is being used by a dev team in-house, and they need to add proprietary magic to it to simulate their internal hosting environment, the derived VM generation package would also need to be licensed under the GPL. Developers, either in-house or subcontracted, would then have the right to repurpose and redistribute this otherwise proprietary code. I can tell you from personal experience this will not fly in many healthcare, gov't, and financial organizations since, even though they use open source (read: MIT, BSD, Apache licenses), they still have code that is necessarily private and proprietary.

Also of note: MIT is "GPL compatible" so we could license VVV as MIT, then forkers could distribute their own forks as GPLv2/3. We can't do it the other way around, though.

@zamoose

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@zamoose

zamoose May 22, 2014

Contributor

@ericmann:
Given that, what is the purpose of even discussing dual-licensing? Is it a
terrible thing to just go with MIT and be done?

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Eric Mann notifications@github.com wrote:

The GPL is called "viral" because any derivative projects must also be
licensed under the GPL (i.e. the license "infects" derivative works).

The issue with GPL software is one of distribution, but not necessarily to
the public. If I use GPL software (i.e. WordPress) to host your website,
you as the consumer never receive the software itself - therefore I don't
necessarily have to give you a copy of the source code. This is how
companies like Automattic and WPEngine can use WordPress (GPL) in specially
modified forms (also GPL) for hosting without being required to give their
modified copies to their customers.

Likewise, a GPL-licensed version of VVV used to spin up a remote
environment would not trigger the distribution/source-availability clause
of the license for anyone who uses the environment through, say, a web
browser.

However, the tricky part comes in when dealing with development teams.
If my hosting tools are GPL, and I hire you as a contractor to work on the
project, I have to give you access to the code itself. Under the GPL,
you're now entitled to your own copy and have the right to distribute
that copy on your own
.

So, if VVV (licensed as GPL) is being used by a dev team in-house, and
they need to add proprietary magic to it to simulate their internal hosting
environment, the derived VM generation package would also need to be
licensed under the GPL. Developers, either in-house or subcontracted, would
then have the right to repurpose and redistribute this otherwise
proprietary code. I can tell you from personal experience this will not fly
in many healthcare, gov't, and financial organizations since, even though
they use open source (read: MIT, BSD, Apache licenses), they still have
code that is necessarily private and proprietary.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/Varying-Vagrant-Vagrants/VVV/issues/346#issuecomment-43919219
.

-Doug

Contributor

zamoose commented May 22, 2014

@ericmann:
Given that, what is the purpose of even discussing dual-licensing? Is it a
terrible thing to just go with MIT and be done?

On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Eric Mann notifications@github.com wrote:

The GPL is called "viral" because any derivative projects must also be
licensed under the GPL (i.e. the license "infects" derivative works).

The issue with GPL software is one of distribution, but not necessarily to
the public. If I use GPL software (i.e. WordPress) to host your website,
you as the consumer never receive the software itself - therefore I don't
necessarily have to give you a copy of the source code. This is how
companies like Automattic and WPEngine can use WordPress (GPL) in specially
modified forms (also GPL) for hosting without being required to give their
modified copies to their customers.

Likewise, a GPL-licensed version of VVV used to spin up a remote
environment would not trigger the distribution/source-availability clause
of the license for anyone who uses the environment through, say, a web
browser.

However, the tricky part comes in when dealing with development teams.
If my hosting tools are GPL, and I hire you as a contractor to work on the
project, I have to give you access to the code itself. Under the GPL,
you're now entitled to your own copy and have the right to distribute
that copy on your own
.

So, if VVV (licensed as GPL) is being used by a dev team in-house, and
they need to add proprietary magic to it to simulate their internal hosting
environment, the derived VM generation package would also need to be
licensed under the GPL. Developers, either in-house or subcontracted, would
then have the right to repurpose and redistribute this otherwise
proprietary code. I can tell you from personal experience this will not fly
in many healthcare, gov't, and financial organizations since, even though
they use open source (read: MIT, BSD, Apache licenses), they still have
code that is necessarily private and proprietary.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/Varying-Vagrant-Vagrants/VVV/issues/346#issuecomment-43919219
.

-Doug

@jeremyfelt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeremyfelt

jeremyfelt May 22, 2014

Member

Interesting point on the distribution to contractors. FYI for anyone, that's covered in this FAQ item.

Things like "Proprietary magic" and "secret sauce" (that second not via @ericmann's) do get to me though. I guess this is the part where I could lean toward GPL as I'm not convinced those have a place in open source software.

I think our plugins system is also worth considering as part of this. Additional scripts can be run on top of the base VVV environment to add the magic sauce without being covered by VVV's license.

Member

jeremyfelt commented May 22, 2014

Interesting point on the distribution to contractors. FYI for anyone, that's covered in this FAQ item.

Things like "Proprietary magic" and "secret sauce" (that second not via @ericmann's) do get to me though. I guess this is the part where I could lean toward GPL as I'm not convinced those have a place in open source software.

I think our plugins system is also worth considering as part of this. Additional scripts can be run on top of the base VVV environment to add the magic sauce without being covered by VVV's license.

@jeremyfelt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeremyfelt

jeremyfelt May 22, 2014

Member

Hmm, my thoughts on plugins may be off. https://drupal.org/licensing/faq/#q7

Member

jeremyfelt commented May 22, 2014

Hmm, my thoughts on plugins may be off. https://drupal.org/licensing/faq/#q7

@adamsilverstein

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@adamsilverstein

adamsilverstein May 22, 2014

I think the MIT license seems most appropriate, given @ericmann's persuasive arguments above - seems like this would allow the widest options for contribution back to the project. If you can't get all existing contributors on board, a joint MIT/GPL license might be a good compromise.

I think the MIT license seems most appropriate, given @ericmann's persuasive arguments above - seems like this would allow the widest options for contribution back to the project. If you can't get all existing contributors on board, a joint MIT/GPL license might be a good compromise.

@JJJ

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@JJJ

JJJ May 22, 2014

Contributor

Let's say someone starts a business around hosting VVV powered remote environments. According to @ericmann's assessment:

  • If VVV were GPL licensed, it is within anyone who leaves this business's right to open-source all of the extra non-VVV bits, as they are likely to also be GPL.
  • If VVV were MIT licensed, the secret sauce could be explicitly licensed as some-other-thing, allowing the business's secrets to remain as secret as they desire.

Personally, I agree with @adamsilverstein's assessment above.

Contributor

JJJ commented May 22, 2014

Let's say someone starts a business around hosting VVV powered remote environments. According to @ericmann's assessment:

  • If VVV were GPL licensed, it is within anyone who leaves this business's right to open-source all of the extra non-VVV bits, as they are likely to also be GPL.
  • If VVV were MIT licensed, the secret sauce could be explicitly licensed as some-other-thing, allowing the business's secrets to remain as secret as they desire.

Personally, I agree with @adamsilverstein's assessment above.

@TheLastCicada

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@TheLastCicada

TheLastCicada May 22, 2014

Contributor

Since we're going to fund this work 2 cents at a time, here's mine....

The question of licensing is more one of mission for this project. The 2 options are....

  1. Is it meant to be a fully open source platform always open to everyone to use non-commercially for local development? If you don't like that mission, create your own Vagrant and leave VVV out of it. This sounds like GPL from what I'm hearing.

or...

  1. Is this meant to be a useful tool, supported by an open source community, that can be used for or altered to do whatever you want, commercial or non-commercial, to meet the needs of the absolute most people and use cases, regardless of what weird restrictions they may need to put on it. This sounds to me like MIT.

If I think back to when this project started (and @jeremyfelt can tell me if I have revisionist history here), we didn't set out to create god's gift to development environments, it was supposed to show what you could do with Vagrant in making a local development environment match what in on a production server and make that approachable. The point was that this would work well enough, but if you had specific needs or you wanted a Vagrant environment to match your host setup (say WPEngine or Dreamhost or you run it with Apache) that you'd use VVV as a reference, but you'd go setup your own Vagrantfile and box and share it on Github yourself, or not share it at all. If that is still the mission here, then GPL seems appropriate as it makes no attempts to cater to these individual use cases. There's nothing stopping anyone from building their own Vagrant development environment that looks a lot like VVV and keeping that in-house and slapping a restrictive license on it - there's no patent on "apt-get install nginx" (I'm screwed if there is). All the tools that built this are free, it isn't magic. If you are going to use VVV, then it is free and you can deal with it. This could have the side-effect of other Vagrant development environments making it out into the world, which would be a good thing from my point of view.

That being said, I see lots of merits in the MIT license as well and could be persuaded. It comes down to what the goal of this project is and what the mission is.

Contributor

TheLastCicada commented May 22, 2014

Since we're going to fund this work 2 cents at a time, here's mine....

The question of licensing is more one of mission for this project. The 2 options are....

  1. Is it meant to be a fully open source platform always open to everyone to use non-commercially for local development? If you don't like that mission, create your own Vagrant and leave VVV out of it. This sounds like GPL from what I'm hearing.

or...

  1. Is this meant to be a useful tool, supported by an open source community, that can be used for or altered to do whatever you want, commercial or non-commercial, to meet the needs of the absolute most people and use cases, regardless of what weird restrictions they may need to put on it. This sounds to me like MIT.

If I think back to when this project started (and @jeremyfelt can tell me if I have revisionist history here), we didn't set out to create god's gift to development environments, it was supposed to show what you could do with Vagrant in making a local development environment match what in on a production server and make that approachable. The point was that this would work well enough, but if you had specific needs or you wanted a Vagrant environment to match your host setup (say WPEngine or Dreamhost or you run it with Apache) that you'd use VVV as a reference, but you'd go setup your own Vagrantfile and box and share it on Github yourself, or not share it at all. If that is still the mission here, then GPL seems appropriate as it makes no attempts to cater to these individual use cases. There's nothing stopping anyone from building their own Vagrant development environment that looks a lot like VVV and keeping that in-house and slapping a restrictive license on it - there's no patent on "apt-get install nginx" (I'm screwed if there is). All the tools that built this are free, it isn't magic. If you are going to use VVV, then it is free and you can deal with it. This could have the side-effect of other Vagrant development environments making it out into the world, which would be a good thing from my point of view.

That being said, I see lots of merits in the MIT license as well and could be persuaded. It comes down to what the goal of this project is and what the mission is.

@jeremyfelt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeremyfelt

jeremyfelt May 22, 2014

Member
If VVV were GPL licensed, it is within anyone who leaves this business's right to open-source all of the extra non-VVV bits, as they are likely to also be GPL.

Only for contractors. Internal distribution is a different matter. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution Though with today's type of workforces—heck, with software development in general—contractors can be the norm.

we didn't set out to create god's gift to development environments

Only to break up with MAMP, which is not MIT or GPL! :)

Is this meant to be a useful tool, supported by an open source community, that can be used for or altered to do whatever you want, commercial or non-commercial, to meet the needs of the absolute most people and use cases, regardless of what weird restrictions they may need to put on it. This sounds to me like MIT.

I really like the GPL. But I also really like this point from @TheLastCicada.

Member

jeremyfelt commented May 22, 2014

If VVV were GPL licensed, it is within anyone who leaves this business's right to open-source all of the extra non-VVV bits, as they are likely to also be GPL.

Only for contractors. Internal distribution is a different matter. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution Though with today's type of workforces—heck, with software development in general—contractors can be the norm.

we didn't set out to create god's gift to development environments

Only to break up with MAMP, which is not MIT or GPL! :)

Is this meant to be a useful tool, supported by an open source community, that can be used for or altered to do whatever you want, commercial or non-commercial, to meet the needs of the absolute most people and use cases, regardless of what weird restrictions they may need to put on it. This sounds to me like MIT.

I really like the GPL. But I also really like this point from @TheLastCicada.

@JJJ JJJ referenced this issue May 23, 2014

Open

GUI for VVV #369

@jeremyfelt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeremyfelt

jeremyfelt May 23, 2014

Member

So I think I've been able to solidify my opinion on this.

From the current README:

VVV as a Scaffold

Entirely different server configurations can be created by modifying
the files included with VVV and through the use of additional Auto 
Site Setup provisioning scripts.

It is not necessary to track the changes made to the main repository.
Feel free to check this project out and then change everything to
make it your own.

The README has changed a lot from the original, though both do focus on digging around and making it your own.

The intent of that digging around and making it your own is educational. The purpose of creating the repository originally was to learn how Vagrant worked and narrate the process. Once it blew my mind, the purpose quickly became educating as many as possible because this really is hot stuff.

I think if we were starting from scratch, I would want to use the GPL out of principle. I really do think it is an appropriate license. And I have no problem with its viralness (virality?) virulence. Mostly because I don't see it as viral, but fair—with usage driven by choice rather than contraction.

All that said.

I think MIT is the most appropriate license at this time. This better fits the current description of VVV as a scaffold in the README that wants you to take it and change it and learn how it works. I feel like it better fits what has been implied about the project over the last 1.5 years.

I would also be okay with a dual license, so that a derivative work could redistribute their entire package under the GPL. I'm not sure if that's more pain than its worth. It may be worth studying the jQuery example to see what drove that decision.

Member

jeremyfelt commented May 23, 2014

So I think I've been able to solidify my opinion on this.

From the current README:

VVV as a Scaffold

Entirely different server configurations can be created by modifying
the files included with VVV and through the use of additional Auto 
Site Setup provisioning scripts.

It is not necessary to track the changes made to the main repository.
Feel free to check this project out and then change everything to
make it your own.

The README has changed a lot from the original, though both do focus on digging around and making it your own.

The intent of that digging around and making it your own is educational. The purpose of creating the repository originally was to learn how Vagrant worked and narrate the process. Once it blew my mind, the purpose quickly became educating as many as possible because this really is hot stuff.

I think if we were starting from scratch, I would want to use the GPL out of principle. I really do think it is an appropriate license. And I have no problem with its viralness (virality?) virulence. Mostly because I don't see it as viral, but fair—with usage driven by choice rather than contraction.

All that said.

I think MIT is the most appropriate license at this time. This better fits the current description of VVV as a scaffold in the README that wants you to take it and change it and learn how it works. I feel like it better fits what has been implied about the project over the last 1.5 years.

I would also be okay with a dual license, so that a derivative work could redistribute their entire package under the GPL. I'm not sure if that's more pain than its worth. It may be worth studying the jQuery example to see what drove that decision.

@lloydde

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lloydde

lloydde Jul 15, 2014

Contributor

@jeremyfelt how are you looking on getting this issue resolved? Please don't dual or tri-license (Mozilla!) this. GPL v2+ likely matches the community's expectations.

Contributor

lloydde commented Jul 15, 2014

@jeremyfelt how are you looking on getting this issue resolved? Please don't dual or tri-license (Mozilla!) this. GPL v2+ likely matches the community's expectations.

@jeremyfelt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeremyfelt

jeremyfelt Jul 15, 2014

Member

@lloydde I'd like to try and wrap this up soon. We'll do a proper vote with all those who have contributed. Per the discussion here, I'm going to recommend MIT. I agree with GPL in principle, but that was a choice that I think needed to be made earlier.

Member

jeremyfelt commented Jul 15, 2014

@lloydde I'd like to try and wrap this up soon. We'll do a proper vote with all those who have contributed. Per the discussion here, I'm going to recommend MIT. I agree with GPL in principle, but that was a choice that I think needed to be made earlier.

@jeremyfelt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeremyfelt

jeremyfelt Jul 15, 2014

Member

And agreed - no dual license. :)

Member

jeremyfelt commented Jul 15, 2014

And agreed - no dual license. :)

@lloydde

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lloydde

lloydde Jul 15, 2014

Contributor

@jeremyfelt great, personally I prefer MIT. Looking forward to this being resolved.

Contributor

lloydde commented Jul 15, 2014

@jeremyfelt great, personally I prefer MIT. Looking forward to this being resolved.

@jeremyfelt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeremyfelt

jeremyfelt Jul 31, 2014

Member

All contributors to the project thus far should be getting an email asking for their decision in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1... Please reply below. 👍

Email excerpt:

As a contributor to VVV, your approval is needed to retroactively license your
contributions to the project.

As primary maintainer of VVV, I'm asking your permission to license your
contributions under the MIT license. http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

I would very much appreciate if you would leave a comment on issue #346 with
your decision. If all goes smoothly, we can assign a license and continue working
toward becoming a proper open source project.
Member

jeremyfelt commented Jul 31, 2014

All contributors to the project thus far should be getting an email asking for their decision in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1... Please reply below. 👍

Email excerpt:

As a contributor to VVV, your approval is needed to retroactively license your
contributions to the project.

As primary maintainer of VVV, I'm asking your permission to license your
contributions under the MIT license. http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

I would very much appreciate if you would leave a comment on issue #346 with
your decision. If all goes smoothly, we can assign a license and continue working
toward becoming a proper open source project.
@jeremyfelt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeremyfelt

jeremyfelt Jul 31, 2014

Member

@sunnyratilal - pinging for vote. Please see above message.

Member

jeremyfelt commented Jul 31, 2014

@sunnyratilal - pinging for vote. Please see above message.

@westonruter

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@westonruter

westonruter Jul 31, 2014

Member

I approve whichever open license is picked.

Member

westonruter commented Jul 31, 2014

I approve whichever open license is picked.

@nacin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nacin

nacin Jul 31, 2014

Contributor

I have my head tilted sideways reading this as some anti-GPL arguments presented here have included "commercial or non-commercial", which is irrelevant. Anyway, MIT is perfectly fine. Since Vagrant is MIT, it seems to be the logical choice. Plugin code can be MIT, and I would consider the wp-tests-config.php file to be a non-problem.

I do know the backstory on jQuery's dual-licensing. Even though MIT was compatible (as they reiterated in their blog post), Drupal wanted it to be GPL-licensed to use it. This was many, many years ago; I don't know if it was the result of miscommunication, misunderstanding, or a desire for a "pure" GPL codebase. Regardless, jQuery went back to MIT-only in 2012 after realizing it was a pain.

Around the time they discussed dropping the GPL, I was talking with the jQuery team and I realized they had actually only ever licensed it as GPLv2, not GPLv2 or later like Drupal and WordPress. Thus it was incompatible with Drupal's license from the beginning, and so they were using it essentially as an MIT library that whole time. Funny, that.

Contributor

nacin commented Jul 31, 2014

I have my head tilted sideways reading this as some anti-GPL arguments presented here have included "commercial or non-commercial", which is irrelevant. Anyway, MIT is perfectly fine. Since Vagrant is MIT, it seems to be the logical choice. Plugin code can be MIT, and I would consider the wp-tests-config.php file to be a non-problem.

I do know the backstory on jQuery's dual-licensing. Even though MIT was compatible (as they reiterated in their blog post), Drupal wanted it to be GPL-licensed to use it. This was many, many years ago; I don't know if it was the result of miscommunication, misunderstanding, or a desire for a "pure" GPL codebase. Regardless, jQuery went back to MIT-only in 2012 after realizing it was a pain.

Around the time they discussed dropping the GPL, I was talking with the jQuery team and I realized they had actually only ever licensed it as GPLv2, not GPLv2 or later like Drupal and WordPress. Thus it was incompatible with Drupal's license from the beginning, and so they were using it essentially as an MIT library that whole time. Funny, that.

@cmmarslender

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cmmarslender

cmmarslender Jul 31, 2014

Contributor

Either license is fine with me (GPL or MIT)

Contributor

cmmarslender commented Jul 31, 2014

Either license is fine with me (GPL or MIT)

@TheLastCicada

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@TheLastCicada

TheLastCicada Jul 31, 2014

Contributor

I'm onboard with whatever license you choose @jeremyfelt as I have confidence that you've put more thought into this than I ever will, and therefore trust your desicion 100%. Approval granted from me.

Contributor

TheLastCicada commented Jul 31, 2014

I'm onboard with whatever license you choose @jeremyfelt as I have confidence that you've put more thought into this than I ever will, and therefore trust your desicion 100%. Approval granted from me.

@markjaquith

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@markjaquith

markjaquith Jul 31, 2014

Contributor

I am fine with either GPL or MIT.

Contributor

markjaquith commented Jul 31, 2014

I am fine with either GPL or MIT.

@pmgarman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pmgarman

pmgarman Jul 31, 2014

Contributor

I'm OK with either GPL or MIT, would agree that MIT seems more logical.

Contributor

pmgarman commented Jul 31, 2014

I'm OK with either GPL or MIT, would agree that MIT seems more logical.

@sunnyratilal

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sunnyratilal

sunnyratilal Jul 31, 2014

Contributor

I am fine with either GPL or MIT.

Contributor

sunnyratilal commented Jul 31, 2014

I am fine with either GPL or MIT.

@jeremyfelt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeremyfelt

jeremyfelt Aug 1, 2014

Member

@reasonbock - are you also @imichaeli?

Member

jeremyfelt commented Aug 1, 2014

@reasonbock - are you also @imichaeli?

@mintindeed

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mintindeed

mintindeed Aug 1, 2014

Contributor

MIT is fine with me.

Contributor

mintindeed commented Aug 1, 2014

MIT is fine with me.

@lvnilesh

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lvnilesh

lvnilesh Aug 1, 2014

Contributor

Your choice @jeremyfelt

Contributor

lvnilesh commented Aug 1, 2014

Your choice @jeremyfelt

@neilpie

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@neilpie

neilpie Aug 3, 2014

Contributor

Your choice @jeremyfelt

Contributor

neilpie commented Aug 3, 2014

Your choice @jeremyfelt

@salcode

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@salcode

salcode Aug 3, 2014

Contributor

+1 for MIT but approve either choice

Contributor

salcode commented Aug 3, 2014

+1 for MIT but approve either choice

@lloydde

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lloydde

lloydde Aug 4, 2014

Contributor

Your choice @jeremyfelt .

@nacin thanks for the additional jQuery insights and well reasoned support.

@jeremyfelt thanks for the continued leadership and working to get this resolved.

Contributor

lloydde commented Aug 4, 2014

Your choice @jeremyfelt .

@nacin thanks for the additional jQuery insights and well reasoned support.

@jeremyfelt thanks for the continued leadership and working to get this resolved.

@cadwell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cadwell

cadwell Aug 8, 2014

Contributor

Entirely up to you @jeremyfelt

Contributor

cadwell commented Aug 8, 2014

Entirely up to you @jeremyfelt

@jeremyfelt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeremyfelt

jeremyfelt Aug 10, 2014

Member

Almost there! Thanks for the great response so far–only 8 to go. :)

@carldanley, @mbijon, @alexw23, @westi, @vDevices, @selinerdominik, @leewillis77 - Please see this comment and leave your vote below.

@aaronjorbin - I think I have you half down for MIT due to your initial response. Good with that?

Thanks!

Member

jeremyfelt commented Aug 10, 2014

Almost there! Thanks for the great response so far–only 8 to go. :)

@carldanley, @mbijon, @alexw23, @westi, @vDevices, @selinerdominik, @leewillis77 - Please see this comment and leave your vote below.

@aaronjorbin - I think I have you half down for MIT due to your initial response. Good with that?

Thanks!

@leewillis77

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@leewillis77

leewillis77 Aug 10, 2014

Contributor

Hi @jeremyfelt - sorry for the delay - I've been on vacation

I am fine with either GPL or MIT.

Contributor

leewillis77 commented Aug 10, 2014

Hi @jeremyfelt - sorry for the delay - I've been on vacation

I am fine with either GPL or MIT.

@selinerdominik

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@selinerdominik

selinerdominik Aug 10, 2014

Contributor

I'd prefer MIT

Contributor

selinerdominik commented Aug 10, 2014

I'd prefer MIT

@westi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@westi

westi Aug 21, 2014

Contributor

I would prefer GPL, but I am happy to go MIT too.

Contributor

westi commented Aug 21, 2014

I would prefer GPL, but I am happy to go MIT too.

@jeremyfelt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeremyfelt

jeremyfelt Sep 18, 2014

Member

Reminder ping to @carldanley, @mbijon, @alexw23, @vDevices, @aaronjorbin. Yes/No vote on MIT, please. :)

Member

jeremyfelt commented Sep 18, 2014

Reminder ping to @carldanley, @mbijon, @alexw23, @vDevices, @aaronjorbin. Yes/No vote on MIT, please. :)

@aaronjorbin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aaronjorbin

aaronjorbin Sep 18, 2014

Contributor

Let me ask my 🎱

It says:
Apache 2 or GTFO

I kid. MIT works for me.

Contributor

aaronjorbin commented Sep 18, 2014

Let me ask my 🎱

It says:
Apache 2 or GTFO

I kid. MIT works for me.

@carldanley

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@carldanley

carldanley Sep 18, 2014

Contributor

MIT ftw! 💯

Contributor

carldanley commented Sep 18, 2014

MIT ftw! 💯

jeremyfelt added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 19, 2014

Add a license file - MIT
Per discussion in GitHub issue #346, we're applying the MIT license
to the VVV project, copyright the contributors of the VVV project.
@jeremyfelt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeremyfelt

jeremyfelt Sep 19, 2014

Member

Thanks!

We're down to @mbijon, @alexw23, and @vDevices. Close!

#453 is ready for merging when we get there. :)

Member

jeremyfelt commented Sep 19, 2014

Thanks!

We're down to @mbijon, @alexw23, and @vDevices. Close!

#453 is ready for merging when we get there. :)

@mbijon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mbijon

mbijon Oct 3, 2014

Contributor

@jeremyfelt I absolutely agree with the MIT licensing of my contrib & the whole project: yay

Contributor

mbijon commented Oct 3, 2014

@jeremyfelt I absolutely agree with the MIT licensing of my contrib & the whole project: yay

@vDevices

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@vDevices

vDevices Oct 7, 2014

Contributor

I vote for MIT.

Contributor

vDevices commented Oct 7, 2014

I vote for MIT.

@cfoellmann

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cfoellmann

cfoellmann Oct 7, 2014

Member

One to go: @alexw23

Member

cfoellmann commented Oct 7, 2014

One to go: @alexw23

@alexw23

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@alexw23

alexw23 Oct 7, 2014

Nil stance from me.

On 8 Oct 2014, at 2:43 am, Christian Foellmann notifications@github.com wrote:

One to go: @alexw23


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

alexw23 commented Oct 7, 2014

Nil stance from me.

On 8 Oct 2014, at 2:43 am, Christian Foellmann notifications@github.com wrote:

One to go: @alexw23


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

@jeremyfelt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jeremyfelt

jeremyfelt Oct 7, 2014

Member

Whoa. I think we're good then. Thanks all!

Member

jeremyfelt commented Oct 7, 2014

Whoa. I think we're good then. Thanks all!

@jeremyfelt jeremyfelt closed this in 3ce7d4b Oct 7, 2014

@lloydde

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lloydde

lloydde Oct 7, 2014

Contributor

@jeremyfelt right on!

Now that the issue is behind you, I just wanted to correct something @nacin wrote, though IANAL & TINLA, "Around the time they discussed dropping the GPL, I was talking with the jQuery team and I realized they had actually only ever licensed it as GPLv2, not GPLv2 or later like Drupal and WordPress. Thus it was incompatible with Drupal's license from the beginning, and so they were using it essentially as an MIT library that whole time. Funny, that."

It is incorrect that "it was incompatible with Drupal's license". A GPLv2 license is compatible with a GPLv2+ license. What would not be compatible would be a GPLv2 and GPLv3 code, for example.

Contributor

lloydde commented Oct 7, 2014

@jeremyfelt right on!

Now that the issue is behind you, I just wanted to correct something @nacin wrote, though IANAL & TINLA, "Around the time they discussed dropping the GPL, I was talking with the jQuery team and I realized they had actually only ever licensed it as GPLv2, not GPLv2 or later like Drupal and WordPress. Thus it was incompatible with Drupal's license from the beginning, and so they were using it essentially as an MIT library that whole time. Funny, that."

It is incorrect that "it was incompatible with Drupal's license". A GPLv2 license is compatible with a GPLv2+ license. What would not be compatible would be a GPLv2 and GPLv3 code, for example.

@nacin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nacin

nacin Oct 7, 2014

Contributor

I have little desire to get into a licensing discussion, but I stand by what I wrote. Drupal and WordPress are both licensed as GPLv2 or later. We cannot incorporate code that is GPLv2 (only) into WordPress itself, as we cannot distribute the complete work as GPLv2 or later. Are they compatible? Yes, they are. Does that matter for our situation? No, it does not.

Right now, you could take Drupal and redistribute it as GPLv3. If Drupal included GPLv2-only code, you could not do that. My point was that for all intents and purposes, jQuery was always used within the Drupal project as MIT code.

Contributor

nacin commented Oct 7, 2014

I have little desire to get into a licensing discussion, but I stand by what I wrote. Drupal and WordPress are both licensed as GPLv2 or later. We cannot incorporate code that is GPLv2 (only) into WordPress itself, as we cannot distribute the complete work as GPLv2 or later. Are they compatible? Yes, they are. Does that matter for our situation? No, it does not.

Right now, you could take Drupal and redistribute it as GPLv3. If Drupal included GPLv2-only code, you could not do that. My point was that for all intents and purposes, jQuery was always used within the Drupal project as MIT code.

@lloydde

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lloydde

lloydde Oct 7, 2014

Contributor

You are confused. What you are writing now is not the same thing as "it was incompatible with Drupal's license". Intent or goals is not the same thing as compatibility. I have dual/tri license experience back from my Mozilla days, which is what this topic really is. The only way to conclude that "jQuery was always used within the Drupal project as MIT code" is if there was other shipped code in Drupal that was incompatible with GPLv2.

Contributor

lloydde commented Oct 7, 2014

You are confused. What you are writing now is not the same thing as "it was incompatible with Drupal's license". Intent or goals is not the same thing as compatibility. I have dual/tri license experience back from my Mozilla days, which is what this topic really is. The only way to conclude that "jQuery was always used within the Drupal project as MIT code" is if there was other shipped code in Drupal that was incompatible with GPLv2.

@markjaquith

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@markjaquith

markjaquith Oct 8, 2014

Contributor

Drupal was released under GPLv2 and GPLv3.

jQuery was released under GPLv2 and MIT.

Which jQuery license choice is compatible with both of Drupal’s licensing choices? Just MIT. This is the point. No more.

Contributor

markjaquith commented Oct 8, 2014

Drupal was released under GPLv2 and GPLv3.

jQuery was released under GPLv2 and MIT.

Which jQuery license choice is compatible with both of Drupal’s licensing choices? Just MIT. This is the point. No more.

@lloydde

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lloydde

lloydde Oct 8, 2014

Contributor

Thanks Mark. That's a better way of putting it. It's about forward compatibility. The suggestion that GPLv2 was incompatible with GPLv2+ was absurd.

Contributor

lloydde commented Oct 8, 2014

Thanks Mark. That's a better way of putting it. It's about forward compatibility. The suggestion that GPLv2 was incompatible with GPLv2+ was absurd.

@JustinSainton JustinSainton referenced this issue in wp-e-commerce/WP-e-Commerce Dec 6, 2014

Open

Support Tour #1699

@jtsternberg jtsternberg referenced this issue in WebDevStudios/aad-sso-wordpress May 5, 2015

Closed

Get approval for MIT license addition from all contributors #8

@tollmanz tollmanz referenced this issue in tollmanz/wordpress-pecl-memcached-object-cache May 25, 2015

Closed

Licensing #63

7 of 7 tasks complete

@itsananderson itsananderson referenced this issue in wp-app/wp-app Aug 28, 2015

Closed

Choose a license #7

jb510 added a commit to jb510/VVV that referenced this issue Feb 28, 2016

Add a license file - MIT
Per discussion in GitHub issue #346, we're applying the MIT license
to the VVV project, copyright the contributors of the VVV project.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment