Would you consider a new license?

[connyay]

Hello!

This API is very beautiful and would like to use it for a project.

Getting some legal pushback about using LGPL code.

Would you consider relicensing to MIT, BSD, or Apache?

Not sure who would make this call...

cc @rogpeppe @wupeka @howbazaar ?

[howbazaar]

Hi there, all three folk you have pinged no longer work at Canonical.

I'd reach out through @jameinel who currently leads the juju project. Unfortunately we can't relicence without Canonical approval.

[jameinel]

Canonical generally has a policy of either AGPLv3 or LGPLv3 + static linking clause. Outside of that there needs to be a pretty strong rationale for why we would publish with a weaker license.

…

On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 2:20 PM Tim Penhey ***@***.***> wrote: Hi there, all three folk you have pinged no longer work at Canonical. I'd reach out through @jameinel <https://github.com/jameinel> who currently leads the juju project. Unfortunately we can't relicence without Canonical approval. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#6 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABRQ7IES32S6VPOSLR6M7LSMXDWHANCNFSM4S7ZAAAA> .

[connyay]

LGPLv3 + static linking appears that it should be ok. Will retry with the lawyers :)

Thanks for the response!

[rogpeppe]

As the maintainer of this repo, I think it's a shame that such a small library can't be relicensed to something a bit more permissive, but I created it while working at Canonical so I'm not free to do so.

FWIW I also am unable to use this package in my work currently because of the license.

[connyay]

Closing the loop - ended up not able to use the package due to license.

I get the reasoning, but is a real bummer.