Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 50 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign uppossible relicensing of qualtRics from GPL-3 to MIT #95
Comments
|
Hi Julia. I don't have strong feelings about this. At the time, I chose GPL-3 because it forces developers who use the source code to make their code open-source, which I liked. I'm on board to change it if you want to. |
|
OK, great. As the previous maintainer (actually, just as anyone in the DESCRIPTION field at all), you need to affirmatively approve the change. Can you, in writing here, say something like, "I agree" or similar? Jasper, do you agree do changing the license for qualtRics to MIT? (If you approve, I'll link to this when communicating to CRAN as evidence of your consent.) |
|
I approve changing the licens for the qualtRics R package from GPL-3 to MIT. |
|
Turns out all copyright holders (contributors) need to agree to change the license. Very small changes like typos don't amount to someone being a copyright holder, but the following folks definitely need to be on board.
I'd like to change to a more permissive MIT license to make it easier for folks working in industry contexts to use this package and extend it in their work if necessary. Can you, in a comment on this issue, say something like, "I agree" or similar? |
|
I agree with the change to the MIT license. |
|
I agree with the change as well.
…On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 11:07 AM Samuel Kaminsky ***@***.***> wrote:
I agree with the change to the MIT license.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#95 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AGQL1TYyn42SvjIZ-iFm_X2zMKBCj4F3ks5vKv2hgaJpZM4afZxE>
.
|
|
I agree with the change. |
|
Thank you, all! I appreciate your flexibility and responsiveness. Not to mention your work on this package! |
@JasperHG90 I have some interest in changing the license on this package to MIT. I don't claim to an expert level knowledge of software licensing, but my understanding of their relative differences leads me to a preference for the more permissive MIT license. Would you be on board with such a license change? Was there a particular motivation behind the choice of GPL-3?