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

License simplification #395

Closed
BigBlueHat opened this Issue Jun 27, 2014 · 10 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@BigBlueHat
Contributor

BigBlueHat commented Jun 27, 2014

Would it be possible to change to just the MIT license?

The GPL makes lawyers jumpy and in this case the double licensing isn't getting much as the MIT is fully compatible with the GPLv2 and v3.

Narrowing it to a single license should help alleviate concerns, focus attention, and make AnnotatorJS feel that much more awesome (and simpler). 😸

jQuery (FWIW) switched to just the MIT in September 2012:
http://blog.jquery.com/2012/09/10/jquery-licensing-changes/

Thanks!

@tilgovi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tilgovi

tilgovi Jun 27, 2014

Member

👍 from me

Member

tilgovi commented Jun 27, 2014

👍 from me

@aron

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aron

aron Jun 27, 2014

Contributor

I have no problems with this either.

Contributor

aron commented Jun 27, 2014

I have no problems with this either.

@tilgovi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tilgovi

tilgovi Jun 27, 2014

Member

To do this responsibility, who do we need to hear from?

@nickstenning, @rgrp, I think.

Other occasional contributors?

Any OKF legal?

Others?

Member

tilgovi commented Jun 27, 2014

To do this responsibility, who do we need to hear from?

@nickstenning, @rgrp, I think.

Other occasional contributors?

Any OKF legal?

Others?

@nickstenning

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nickstenning

nickstenning Jul 3, 2014

Member

I'm ok with a simpler license, but I'd like us to be very careful before we simplify to MIT alone. At the moment, contributors to the project are saying (implicitly, currently) that they are happy licensing their contributions under either the GPL or the MIT license. This leaves with the possibility of simplifying to the GPL (or GPL-compatible licenses) or to MIT without undue effort to establish signoff from past contributors.

I'd like to have a chat, perhaps with @BigBlueHat, @tilgovi, @dwhly, @aron and anyone else with a stake in this, about how we license Annotator. I think we have the potential to build an even stronger community around Annotator, and I don't want to see us make a rookie mistake at this stage.

Food for thought: http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:chapter6, specifically http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:chapter6#eat-me.

Member

nickstenning commented Jul 3, 2014

I'm ok with a simpler license, but I'd like us to be very careful before we simplify to MIT alone. At the moment, contributors to the project are saying (implicitly, currently) that they are happy licensing their contributions under either the GPL or the MIT license. This leaves with the possibility of simplifying to the GPL (or GPL-compatible licenses) or to MIT without undue effort to establish signoff from past contributors.

I'd like to have a chat, perhaps with @BigBlueHat, @tilgovi, @dwhly, @aron and anyone else with a stake in this, about how we license Annotator. I think we have the potential to build an even stronger community around Annotator, and I don't want to see us make a rookie mistake at this stage.

Food for thought: http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:chapter6, specifically http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:chapter6#eat-me.

@csillag

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@csillag

csillag Jul 4, 2014

Contributor

On 2014-07-03 21:40, Nick Stenning wrote:

I don't want to see us make a rookie mistake at this stage.

Food for thought: http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:chapter6, specifically
http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:chapter6#eat-me.

Indeed.

I would actually prefer keeping the GPL part.
(I think many of the points made by RMS are quite clearly right.)

Contributor

csillag commented Jul 4, 2014

On 2014-07-03 21:40, Nick Stenning wrote:

I don't want to see us make a rookie mistake at this stage.

Food for thought: http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:chapter6, specifically
http://zguide.zeromq.org/page:chapter6#eat-me.

Indeed.

I would actually prefer keeping the GPL part.
(I think many of the points made by RMS are quite clearly right.)

@tilgovi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tilgovi

tilgovi Jul 6, 2014

Member

On Jul 3, 2014 12:40 PM, "Nick Stenning" notifications@github.com wrote:

I'm ok with a simpler license, but I'd like us to be very careful before
we simplify to MIT alone. At the moment, contributors to the project are
saying (implicitly, currently) that they are happy licensing their
contributions under either the GPL or the MIT license. This leaves with the
possibility of simplifying to the GPL (or GPL-compatible licenses) or to
MIT without undue effort to establish signoff from past contributors.

That's true if we use MIT only, since MIT code can be used in GPL (but not
vice versa).

What we could do with GPL only is import GPL code that wasn't given to us
explicitly. Right now we can't do that, either, since we don't have the
right to redistribute it under MIT.

I'd like to have a chat, perhaps with @BigBlueHat, @tilgovi, @dwhly,
@aron and anyone else with a stake in this, about how we license Annotator.
I think we have the potential to build an even stronger community around
Annotator, and I don't want to see us make a rookie mistake at this stage.

Let's schedule a time.

Should we also send it out to the mailing list?

Member

tilgovi commented Jul 6, 2014

On Jul 3, 2014 12:40 PM, "Nick Stenning" notifications@github.com wrote:

I'm ok with a simpler license, but I'd like us to be very careful before
we simplify to MIT alone. At the moment, contributors to the project are
saying (implicitly, currently) that they are happy licensing their
contributions under either the GPL or the MIT license. This leaves with the
possibility of simplifying to the GPL (or GPL-compatible licenses) or to
MIT without undue effort to establish signoff from past contributors.

That's true if we use MIT only, since MIT code can be used in GPL (but not
vice versa).

What we could do with GPL only is import GPL code that wasn't given to us
explicitly. Right now we can't do that, either, since we don't have the
right to redistribute it under MIT.

I'd like to have a chat, perhaps with @BigBlueHat, @tilgovi, @dwhly,
@aron and anyone else with a stake in this, about how we license Annotator.
I think we have the potential to build an even stronger community around
Annotator, and I don't want to see us make a rookie mistake at this stage.

Let's schedule a time.

Should we also send it out to the mailing list?

@BigBlueHat

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@BigBlueHat

BigBlueHat Sep 17, 2014

Contributor

FWIW, I did some NPM package.json research recently, and it seem it only supports a single license value.

I'll raise this issue on the mailing list, and we'll see what comes next.

Contributor

BigBlueHat commented Sep 17, 2014

FWIW, I did some NPM package.json research recently, and it seem it only supports a single license value.

I'll raise this issue on the mailing list, and we'll see what comes next.

@tilgovi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tilgovi

tilgovi Sep 17, 2014

Member

I recently came across the ISC License and am tempted to use it for my own stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license

Member

tilgovi commented Sep 17, 2014

I recently came across the ISC License and am tempted to use it for my own stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license

@nickstenning

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nickstenning

nickstenning Sep 21, 2014

Member

From this point forward, I'm going to be keeping the Annotator issue tracker for bug reports only. Enhancements and feature requests should be made on the mailing list.

As this is a feature request, I'm going to close this issue. If you feel that I've miscategorised the discussion, and there is a genuine unaddressed bug, feel free to reopen with an explanation.

Member

nickstenning commented Sep 21, 2014

From this point forward, I'm going to be keeping the Annotator issue tracker for bug reports only. Enhancements and feature requests should be made on the mailing list.

As this is a feature request, I'm going to close this issue. If you feel that I've miscategorised the discussion, and there is a genuine unaddressed bug, feel free to reopen with an explanation.

@tilgovi

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tilgovi

tilgovi Sep 21, 2014

Member

@BigBlueHat since you kicked this off want to take it to the ML?

Member

tilgovi commented Sep 21, 2014

@BigBlueHat since you kicked this off want to take it to the ML?

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