Maybe change the license?

[alexcondrea]

I would love to contribute to the project but not if it's under GPL. I know this is a lot to ask but would you consider changing the license to MIT or something else that is not copy-left?

[rGalrito]

What would be the advantages of such?

[alexcondrea]

Mainly compatibility with other projects and licenses. GPL code can be used only in GPL code. So if someone wants to use parts of the code in this project intro a project with an MIT license, they are forced to use a GPL license for their project or don't use the code at all. I personally think this hinders the flow of free software and the creative way in which we write it, use or reuse it.

The only disadvantage would be a fear of someone using the code you have written for commercial purposes, but then again I can tell you from experience, if there would have not been so many projects out there with BSD or MIT-like licenses everything that uses software from your car to your toaster would be much more expensive because every developer would have to reinvent the wheel in every project.

Hope this sheds more light on the topic :)

[KalleHallden]

Hi, it could definitely make sense to change it to MIT what is the best way of doing that? :)

[alexcondrea]

The project has a license file.
From a technical perspective it's pretty easy Just change the text of the LICENSE file to this https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT with name and year.
From a legal perspective I think you have to first ask every contributor until now and the ones who have send in pull requests if they are ok with changing the license, since when they committed their code they implicitly agreed to release it under the GPL.

[lotvall]

I definitely second using something more permissive such as MIT.

Since the project only includes some text so far I would remove all commits made by other people than you and ask them to make PR's again under the new license. Also have all currently open PR's confirm they are OK with MIT licensing before merging.

[zytact]

It's true that you cannot use GPL code anywhere else. I strongly suggest using something like GPL v2 and not MIT. Let's say someone forks the project, they won't be forced to give you the improvements they may have made. On top of that anyone can include your code in their proprietary code. That maybe okay to you, it's understandable. This is just my opinion, and I am not against anyone who says otherwise. Everyone has their reasons, you just need to understand and prioritize what you need in your project.

[alexcondrea]

@Arnab771 But why would you force people to give you the improvements of their code? If you need it you take it since their repo are also public

[lotvall]

@Arnab771 But why would you force people to give you the improvements of their code? If you need it you take it since their repo are also public

Sorry you are wrong. With MIT and other permissive licenses you are allowed to copy the code and use it in a private unlicensed repository.

In general I would not copy ant code from another repository (public or not) without checking the license and ensuring it's compatible with my project.

[zytact]

@Arnab771 But why would you force people to give you the improvements of their code? If you need it you take it since their repo are also public

Sorry you are wrong. With MIT and other permissive licenses you are allowed to copy the code and use it in a private unlicensed repository.

In general I would not copy ant code from another repository (public or not) without checking the license and ensuring it's compatible with my project.

That's the point, I would like my code to be used only in open-source software nothing else. I don't know about GPL v2 that much. The license would mostly depend on what the owner of the repo wants.