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

Can you make the license on this MIT? #45

Closed
tony opened this Issue May 24, 2016 · 19 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@tony

tony commented May 24, 2016

I can't use any form of GPL at work (including LGPL). Even if it was possible, the handling considerations wouldn't be worth it for a plugin. A few months ago I had a remote worker try to borrow code from an LGPL plugin for a project, thinking "hey it's open source, and freedom". Its not easy to convey the ramification of creating a derivative work.

pytest itself is MIT.

@schollii

This comment has been minimized.

schollii commented May 24, 2016

On May 24, 2016 06:39, "Tony Narlock" notifications@github.com wrote:

I can't use any form of GPL at work (including LGPL). Even if it was
possible, the handling considerations wouldn't be worth it for a plugin. A
few months ago I had a remote worker try to borrow code from an LGPL plugin
for a project, thinking "hey it's open source, and freedom". Its not easy
to convey the ramification of creating a derivative work.

pytest itself is MIT.

This only matters if you want to distribute your library and it is packaged
with the plugin, is it your case?
Oliver

@The-Compiler

This comment has been minimized.

Member

The-Compiler commented May 24, 2016

Note this would probably also require the consent of all contributors as far as I know - while that's probably doable with 13 people, it's still somewhat of a hassle.

@nicoddemus

This comment has been minimized.

Member

nicoddemus commented May 24, 2016

Myself in my newest projects have followed pytest's example and use MIT, so personally I wouldn't mind. But @The-Compiler is right of course, we should ask consent for all contributors. Perhaps a poll on this thread is enough to obtain consent from everyone? What do you guys think?

@tony

This comment has been minimized.

tony commented May 24, 2016

I think the quotation of the email above is broken.

This only matters if you want to distribute your library and it is packaged
with the plugin, is it your case?

I could go expound on this if you like. I think the onus should rest upon the one backing the more sophisticated license to justify it. GPL is not backward compatible unfortunately.

Note this would probably also require the consent of all contributors as far as I know - while that's probably doable with 13 people, it's still somewhat of a hassle.

I think the earlier its done the better. As a stop-gap, you can also add to the README that after 68f7968 (for example) all future commits are licensed MIT.

@The-Compiler

This comment has been minimized.

Member

The-Compiler commented May 24, 2016

@nicoddemus As far as I know, other projects handled this by mentioning all people in an issue (like this one) and asking them to respond if they agree with adopting the new license. Should I do so?

@tony With all due respect, if you want to change the license of a project people work on in their free time, it's your job to explain the rationale behind doing so, and not the other way around. 😄

FWIW to tick that one off, I'm okay with relicensing my contribution (deleting a file, heh) under the MIT license.

@nicoddemus

This comment has been minimized.

Member

nicoddemus commented May 24, 2016

As far as I know, other projects handled this by mentioning all people in an issue (like this one) and asking them to respond if they agree with adopting the new license.

That's exactly what I had in mind, sorry for not being clearer. 😁

Should I do so?

Yes, thanks! I was planning on doing this tonight, but if you got some minutes to spare I would appreciate it. 😄

@tony

This comment has been minimized.

tony commented May 24, 2016

project people work on in their free time,

I think the biggest piece of gratitude you can get (other than money) is that someone using your software. I spent the past few days converting projects from unittest to py.test and apparently am quite happy prompt-toolkit/pyvim#35 (comment)

With all due respect, if you want to change the license of a project people work on in their free time, it's your job to explain the rationale behind doing so, and not the other way around. 😄

I offered to elaborate. 😄

I have before: ScottDuckworth/python-anyvcs#32, urwid/urwid#41, django-wiki/django-wiki#454, Valloric/ycmd#139, pypa/pip#3441, jgm/peg-markdown#35, saitoha/canossa#1

Various outcomes.

@nicoddemus

This comment has been minimized.

Member

nicoddemus commented May 24, 2016

Thanks for the links, interesting reading. 😁

@nicoddemus

This comment has been minimized.

Member

nicoddemus commented May 25, 2016

Here's the list of contributors:

Guys does any of don't agree to change pytest-mock license from GPL3 to MIT in the next release?

@Chronial

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

Chronial commented May 25, 2016

Fine by me.

@jespino

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

jespino commented May 25, 2016

My contribution in this project is really small (a typo fix), so of course, I agree with the change 😃

@tigarmo

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

tigarmo commented May 25, 2016

You have my permission too, of course!

Tiago

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Jesús Espino notifications@github.com
wrote:

My contribution in this project is really small (a typo fix), so of
course, I agree with the change 😃


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#45 (comment)

@fogo

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

fogo commented May 25, 2016

MIT license, here we go!

@RonnyPfannschmidt

This comment has been minimized.

Member

RonnyPfannschmidt commented May 25, 2016

fine by me

@blueyed

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

blueyed commented May 25, 2016

Fine by me!

@asfaltboy

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

asfaltboy commented May 25, 2016

me too, no problemo

@nicoddemus

This comment has been minimized.

Member

nicoddemus commented May 25, 2016

OK, thanks everyone!

I will change pytest-mock license to MIT in the 1.1 release, making sure to mention that prominently on the CHANGELOG.

@The-Compiler

This comment has been minimized.

Member

The-Compiler commented May 25, 2016

I'd recommend changing the license in the repo ASAP, to make sure new contributors are aware of what license they're licensing their contributions under (in case there should be new people between now and 1.1).

@nicoddemus

This comment has been minimized.

Member

nicoddemus commented May 25, 2016

Oh thanks, good point, I will do that later.

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