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

Proposing to change license from MIT to GPLv3 #154

Closed
2 tasks done
PickleNik opened this issue Aug 25, 2022 · 18 comments
Closed
2 tasks done

Proposing to change license from MIT to GPLv3 #154

PickleNik opened this issue Aug 25, 2022 · 18 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed pinned

Comments

@PickleNik
Copy link
Contributor

PickleNik commented Aug 25, 2022

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:

  • All contributors to the codebase agree with the change.
  • Replace the main license file with GPLv3.

Screen Shot 2022-08-25 at 12 43 43 PM

@lukelavery
Copy link
Contributor

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

@PickleNik
Copy link
Contributor Author

to prevent others from using this code to make a profit.

This is not correct and is a common misconception, all GPL open-source licenses allow for commercial use and distribution.
They do require any forks to be kept open-source, which means any modifications of and improvements to the app must be shared if they are being distributed. So nobody can say, clone the repo, add a crypto miner or an IP grabber to it and publish it to the AppStore/PlayStore, if it is published any edits will need to be open-sourced.

To clear up any confusion, GPLv3 does NOT prevent the app from being sold or monetized.

@lukelavery
Copy link
Contributor

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?

@PickleNik
Copy link
Contributor Author

So the main benefit of a license like this would be to prevent improper use of the code?

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.

And do you have thoughts on using a more restrictive license that would prevent commercial use?

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:
https://choosealicense.com/licenses/gpl-3.0/
https://choosealicense.com/

And another good resource:
https://opensource.org/licenses/GPL-3.0

And here's a gist for it:
https://gist.github.com/kn9ts/cbe95340d29fc1aaeaa5dd5c059d2e60

@lukelavery
Copy link
Contributor

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?

@PickleNik
Copy link
Contributor Author

MIT is possibly too permissive in this regard?

image
here's a good diagram about that

@PickleNik
Copy link
Contributor Author

@dinurymomshad @KalleHallden @tenshiAMD @mfederowicz
I'd really appreciate your input on this :)

@mfederowicz
Copy link
Contributor

@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 :)

@PickleNik
Copy link
Contributor Author

True, but all contributors need to agree on this for him to change the license if decides that he wants to.

@momshaddinury momshaddinury added enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed labels Aug 29, 2022
@KalleHallden
Copy link
Collaborator

@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

@PickleNik
Copy link
Contributor Author

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

@momshaddinury
Copy link
Contributor

@PickleNik can you sort this out, please? I think everyone agrees

@PickleNik
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks like @jorgelrj @TheAmanM are the only remaining votes needed from people who contributed directly to the codebase and not to the outside files.

@momshaddinury
Copy link
Contributor

Okay, let's wait one more day if we don't get any reply. Let's change it to GPLv3

@PickleNik
Copy link
Contributor Author

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 :)

@TheAmanM
Copy link
Contributor

TheAmanM commented Sep 6, 2022

Woah, that's a lot of text!
Apologies for the lack of response. I will take a look at this in a few hours from now.

@TheAmanM
Copy link
Contributor

TheAmanM commented Sep 6, 2022

@PickleNik All good with me!

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Sep 21, 2022

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.
Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale label Sep 21, 2022
@stale stale bot removed the stale label Sep 21, 2022
@PickleNik PickleNik closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Jan 17, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed pinned
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

7 participants