-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 85
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
Proposing to change license from MIT to GPLv3 #154
Comments
As far as I understand, the GPL licence will require anyone using this code to open source the project. This seems like a sensible change, to prevent others from using this code to make a profit. It may be useful to have an open discussion about any other licenses that are worth consideration |
This is not correct and is a common misconception, all GPL open-source licenses allow for commercial use and distribution. To clear up any confusion, GPLv3 does NOT prevent the app from being sold or monetized. |
So the main benefit of a license like this would be to prevent improper use of the code? And do you have thoughts on using a more restrictive license that would prevent commercial use? |
The main benefit is keeping changes and improvements open-source (that doesn't necessarily prevent improper use, but makes it more unlikely) and prevents from re-licensing code under a closed-source proprietary license which MIT allows for.
I'm personally not aware of any open-source license that prevents commercial use, when you do that it becomes more like source-available rather than open-source. Here's a good resource made by Github: And another good resource: And here's a gist for it: |
I see, thank you for explaining. Would love to hear @KalleHallden 's thoughts on this, and your motivations to open-source the project. The prevention of re-licensing seems like an interesting idea to keep any code developed within the open-source community. MIT is possibly too permissive in this regard? |
@dinurymomshad @KalleHallden @tenshiAMD @mfederowicz |
@PickleNik i think that @KalleHallden as original author of this application, should decide about type of used license. To be honest iam only contributor, and I like develop/learn new things :) |
True, but all contributors need to agree on this for him to change the license if decides that he wants to. |
@PickleNik I think this looks like the GPLv3 would be a suitable license to use. I just chose the MIT to have some sort of license that I have used before. So I'm happy to switch to GPLv3 |
Great, now we just have to make sure everyone's cool with it :) @jorgelrj @TheAmanM @hannest03 @rachitkakkar @luca400 @aayushchugh @ckelwin @Bogdwynny @MhouneyLH @0RaMsY0 @md-siam @lukelavery @mfederowicz @tenshiAMD (sorry for the ping 😰) Please 👍 if you're ok with this change |
@PickleNik can you sort this out, please? I think everyone agrees |
Okay, let's wait one more day if we don't get any reply. Let's change it to GPLv3 |
I've reached out to @jorgelrj via email and I'm not sure how to reach @TheAmanM although they seem to be active on Github. I am not a lawyer, but it seems like the contributions from both of them have been heavily edited to the point where it could be considered Fair Use, but a thumbs up for confirmation would still be appreciated from both regardless :) |
Woah, that's a lot of text! |
@PickleNik All good with me! |
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. |
MIT to GPLv3
Motivation behind this change: prevent proprietary derivative works.
The main reason for this change is to provide protection against the future distribution of the exer_log app in a proprietary form, while at the same time maintaining all of the freedoms to use, change or share the project which are currently in-place.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html
What needs to be done for this:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: