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

Change license? #320

Closed
joewing opened this Issue Jul 15, 2016 · 5 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@joewing
Owner

joewing commented Jul 15, 2016

It has been suggested that JWM adopt a less restrictive license, such as the simplified BSD license or ISC. I’m open to suggestions, of course.

@joewing joewing added the enhancement label Jul 15, 2016

@technosaurus

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@technosaurus

technosaurus Jul 15, 2016

Contributor

+1 for me. (All of my patches are released to Public Domain)

jwm is my last holdout to have a basic linux subsystem with a basic Xserver, wm and terminal that I could compile into a single MIT/X licensed multicall binary (I statically compile against musl-libc and tinyX11). It significantly reduces the binary sizes to the point where I can now put everything needed to boot to a desktop in a 1MB onboard flash (perfect for coreboot, a.k.a. linux bios)

An MIT/X11 compatible license would be awesome for use in the base system because versions of the GPL are incompatible with each other and could prevent a GPL3 program from being included in one of these multicall binaries if it already has GPLv2 only stuff .... Then there is android with the no GPL in userspace rule - it would be nice to have a good window manager available for android.

I have been trying to learn xcb to write my own replacement for this purpose (using libxcb, stb-image and nanosvg)... but xcb is not that much of an improvement over Xlib (aside from async) - it still doesn't just take a pointer to a struct for request data, so the function prototypes are still stupidly long, painful to write and contribute ~half of the library size.

Contributor

technosaurus commented Jul 15, 2016

+1 for me. (All of my patches are released to Public Domain)

jwm is my last holdout to have a basic linux subsystem with a basic Xserver, wm and terminal that I could compile into a single MIT/X licensed multicall binary (I statically compile against musl-libc and tinyX11). It significantly reduces the binary sizes to the point where I can now put everything needed to boot to a desktop in a 1MB onboard flash (perfect for coreboot, a.k.a. linux bios)

An MIT/X11 compatible license would be awesome for use in the base system because versions of the GPL are incompatible with each other and could prevent a GPL3 program from being included in one of these multicall binaries if it already has GPLv2 only stuff .... Then there is android with the no GPL in userspace rule - it would be nice to have a good window manager available for android.

I have been trying to learn xcb to write my own replacement for this purpose (using libxcb, stb-image and nanosvg)... but xcb is not that much of an improvement over Xlib (aside from async) - it still doesn't just take a pointer to a struct for request data, so the function prototypes are still stupidly long, painful to write and contribute ~half of the library size.

@joewing

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@joewing

joewing Jul 16, 2016

Owner

The way I see it, changing the license is only a benefit for end users and I don’t imagine any contributors really care. I think I’m going to go with the ISC license since it’s simple.

Owner

joewing commented Jul 16, 2016

The way I see it, changing the license is only a benefit for end users and I don’t imagine any contributors really care. I think I’m going to go with the ISC license since it’s simple.

@joewing joewing added this to the Version 2.3.6 milestone Jul 16, 2016

@technosaurus

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@technosaurus

technosaurus Jul 16, 2016

Contributor

Sounds great. It may even make jwm a candidate for the default wm for some of the BSDs where ISC is preferred.

Contributor

technosaurus commented Jul 16, 2016

Sounds great. It may even make jwm a candidate for the default wm for some of the BSDs where ISC is preferred.

@dumblob

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@dumblob

dumblob Jul 17, 2016

I would advocate for MIT as it's proven by huge projects like Fedora (if I'm not mistaken, Fedora guys even use MIT to globally relicense public domain works, because otherwise problems occur).

If I expect not only individuals to use my software for their own non-profit purposes, I stick to principles mentioned in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bAAlPXB2-c (keynote about licenses from the GitHub co-founder) and look at http://choosealicense.com/ to choose a globally legally respected and globally legally-proved-to-be-ok license.

ISC (in contrast to e.g. MIT) assumes Berne convention applies, but in many countries in the world Berne convention is not ratified and thus the ISC license will prevent users and companies in these countries from using JWM and external users/companies from doing any related business (e.g. importing any products containing JWM) into those countries.

dumblob commented Jul 17, 2016

I would advocate for MIT as it's proven by huge projects like Fedora (if I'm not mistaken, Fedora guys even use MIT to globally relicense public domain works, because otherwise problems occur).

If I expect not only individuals to use my software for their own non-profit purposes, I stick to principles mentioned in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bAAlPXB2-c (keynote about licenses from the GitHub co-founder) and look at http://choosealicense.com/ to choose a globally legally respected and globally legally-proved-to-be-ok license.

ISC (in contrast to e.g. MIT) assumes Berne convention applies, but in many countries in the world Berne convention is not ratified and thus the ISC license will prevent users and companies in these countries from using JWM and external users/companies from doing any related business (e.g. importing any products containing JWM) into those countries.

@joewing

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@joewing

joewing Jul 21, 2016

Owner

Given that ISC and MIT are so similar, I’m fine with using MIT instead. My original pick of ISC was based on its simplicity, but MIT is fairly simple as well, and much more common.

Owner

joewing commented Jul 21, 2016

Given that ISC and MIT are so similar, I’m fine with using MIT instead. My original pick of ISC was based on its simplicity, but MIT is fairly simple as well, and much more common.

@joewing joewing closed this Jul 27, 2016

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