Move away from github

[pr2502]

hi everyone, sorry for the big ping. this project has reached 512 stars and to celebrate that i want to get away from github to codeberg. and while i'm already doing that i'd also like to relicense from MIT to a more copyleft license - specifically EUPL. if every contributor would be ok with that i can just change the license in place, if not i'll relicense my portion of the code and keep the contributed portion under MIT. the repository archive on github will always stay MIT licensed.

while i was looking through contributors i also noticed at least one deadname stuck in the commit history, i'd be happy to retroactively change the author field to your preferred name before i archive the github repository, if you give me a mailmap entry for it (NewName, NewEmail, OldEmailFromYourCommits) so i don't have to guess :) you can send it here or privately via email.

thank you all!

@EliteTK @WhyNotHugo @striezel @Ddystopia @simnalamburt @memoryruins @jackos @maddiemort @xguerin @yaymukund @tvercruyssen @falcucci @Sheol27 @vonPB @YuanYuYuan @sasa-tomic @pplanel

EDIT: it seems github won't tell me who added their +1 to an issue if there is >5 🙃 please also write a reply so i know you're ok with the license change, thank you! nvm, i can get it using curl -L -H "Accept: application/vnd.github+json" -H "X-GitHub-Api-Version: 2022-11-28" https://api.github.com/repos/pr2502/ra-multiplex/issues/94/reactions | jq '.[] | "\(.user.login) \(.content)"' :D

[simnalamburt]

@simnalamburt → "Jihyeon Kim simnalamburt@gmail.com"

TODO for myself: Update homebrew-core to follow github to codeberg remote migration

[yaymukund]

Sounds good to me.

Edit: Dearest lawyers, I, Mukund Lakshman, release the contributions I have made so far to pr2502's ra-multiplex under the terms of the EUPL v1.2 (SPDX EUPL-1.2).

[vonPB]

Lgtm!

For the lawyers (click to expand)

I, Philipp Bokatius, release the contributions I have made so far to pr2502's ra-multiplex under the terms of the EUPL v1.2 (SPDX EUPL-1.2).

Edit: Added formal EUPL statement for clarity.

[pplanel]

sounds good

…

On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 at 09:31 mukund ***@***.***> wrote: *yaymukund* left a comment (pr2502/ra-multiplex#94) <#94 (comment)> Sounds good to me. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#94 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADX62BZ73S23GVMA3MKFLD3WOXBDAVCNFSM6AAAAACIQIM4YSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTGNZWGY3TOOBZGY> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[Ddystopia]

I'm fine with relicensing

[WhyNotHugo]

I'm fine with EUPL. Happy to hear you're moving to an open source platform :)

[EliteTK]

I had not heard of EUPL before. It seems possible (correct me if I'm wrong) to incorporate EUPL work into a GPLv3/GPLv3+ project?

Regardless, given it's copyleft, OSI approved, and FSF approved then I don't mind.

For the lawyers:

I, Tomasz Kramkowski, release the contributions I have made so far to pr2502's ra-multiplex under the terms of the EUPL v1.2 (SPDX EUPL-1.2).

[pr2502]

yes that's correct, it's explicitly compatible with GPLv3 (and several other copyleft licenses) in the sense that EUPL licensed code can be re-released as part of a larger GPLv3 licensed project

[striezel]

I am OK with relicensing the contributions I have made so far to pr2502's ra-multiplex project under the terms of the European Union Public License (EUPL) version 1.2.

---

Some comments about the license compatibility for EUPL:

I had not heard of EUPL before. It seems possible (correct me if I'm wrong) to incorporate EUPL work into a GPLv3/GPLv3+ project?

yes that's correct, it's explicitly compatible with GPLv3 (and several other copyleft licenses) in the sense that EUPL licensed code can be re-released as part of a larger GPLv3 licensed project

It's a bit trickier than that, according to the FSF's statement on EUPL v1.2:

This is a free software license. By itself, it has a copyleft comparable to the GPL's, and incompatible with it. However, it gives recipients ways to relicense the work under the terms of other selected licenses [...] The EUPL allows relicensing to GPLv2 only and GPLv3 only, because those licenses are listed as two of the alternative licenses that users may convert to. It also, indirectly, allows relicensing to GPL version 3 or any later version, because there is a way to relicense to the CeCILL v2, and the CeCILL v2 gives a way to relicense to any version of the GNU GPL.

So technically, you can incorporate EUPL-licensed works into a GNU GPL-3.0-only project but not directly into a GNU GPL-3.0-or-later project. That seems to be the reason why FSF lists the EUPL as incompatible with GPL. If your project uses GPLv2-only/GPLv3-only, you are fine. If your project uses GPLv2 or later/GPLv3 or later, you need to do some extra steps.

[maddiemort]

I, Madeleine Mortensen, release the contributions I have made so far to pr2502's ra-multiplex under the terms of the EUPL v1.2 (SPDX EUPL-1.2).

[falcucci]

I, Alexsander Falcucci, release the contributions I have made so far to pr2502's ra-multiplex under the terms of the EUPL v1.2 (SPDX EUPL-1.2).

[memoryruins]

I, memoryruins, release the contributions I have made so far to pr2502's ra-multiplex under the terms of the EUPL v1.2 (SPDX EUPL-1.2).

[pr2502]

thank you all! now i have a comment or at least +1 from all but one contributor over all project's history, but from everyone whose code is currently in the repository and whose contributions are therefore affected by the license change - past versions will always be available under MIT terms.

therefore i'm going to proceed with the migration :) the history rewrite to erase deadnames has already been pushed into main