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

Moving project to MIT license #3255

Closed
pferreir opened this Issue Mar 5, 2018 · 12 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
9 participants
@pferreir
Copy link
Member

pferreir commented Mar 5, 2018

There is a detailed explanation on the forum. The main takeaway is:

  • We'd like to change Indico's license from GPLv3 to MIT;
  • The main goal is to clarify the legal status of plugins that are developed but not shared with the community;
  • We believe this will be good for the Indico ecosystem and society as a whole;
  • We intend to release 2.2 as MIT-licensed software;

CCing the contributors I can find on here:

Please let us know whether you'd consent to this move.

@ThiefMaster ThiefMaster added this to the v2.2 milestone Mar 5, 2018

@bpedersen2

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

bpedersen2 commented Mar 5, 2018

Yes, that seems indeed a good idea from my side

@jouvin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

jouvin commented Mar 5, 2018

@pferreir I was not remembering that I contributed once but if it is the case, I'm happy with the move to a permissive license, in principle. I think it is along the lines of the the discussions we had in HSF with licensing, where GPLv3 seems to cause a lot of problems at the end. The choice of MIT is probably not the norm also but is fine as this is probably the simplest/shortest and most permissive license. Have you considered Apache2 which tends to be the most used permissive license today?

@ThiefMaster

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

ThiefMaster commented Mar 5, 2018

@jouvin that's your commit:

e04aff6 - Upgrade docs: mention --migrate-broken-events (8 months ago)

@jouvin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

jouvin commented Mar 5, 2018

@ThiefMaster thanks, it's nice to take into account such a small addition!

@pferreir

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

pferreir commented Mar 5, 2018

Have you considered Apache2 which tends to be the most used permissive license today?

Yes, we have, and the conclusion is that the added value Apache offers is too little to compensate for the lack of simplicity. MIT will be more friendly to spontaneous contributors. There's also the "historical" reason mentioned on the forum post.

@sobolevn

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

sobolevn commented Mar 5, 2018

no problem for me. let it be whatever license you choose. 👍

@openprojects

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

openprojects commented Mar 5, 2018

@fph

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

fph commented Mar 5, 2018

Green light from me as well (and actually my contribution to Indico is ridiculously small, just a one-line change in the documentation).

@shesselbach

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

shesselbach commented Mar 5, 2018

The license change is no problem for me, too.

@jouvin

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

jouvin commented Mar 5, 2018

@pferreir Thanks!

@driehle

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

driehle commented Mar 5, 2018

I am fine with switching to MIT license.

@pferreir pferreir referenced this issue Aug 3, 2018

Open

License Change and others #3483

0 of 4 tasks complete
@pferreir

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

pferreir commented Aug 3, 2018

Addressed by #3483

@pferreir pferreir closed this Aug 3, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment