Skip to content
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

possible relicensing of qualtRics from GPL-3 to MIT #95

Closed
juliasilge opened this issue Feb 2, 2019 · 8 comments
Closed

possible relicensing of qualtRics from GPL-3 to MIT #95

juliasilge opened this issue Feb 2, 2019 · 8 comments
Assignees

Comments

@juliasilge
Copy link
Collaborator

@juliasilge juliasilge commented Feb 2, 2019

@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?

@JasperHG90
Copy link
Collaborator

@JasperHG90 JasperHG90 commented Feb 2, 2019

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.

@juliasilge
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@juliasilge juliasilge commented Feb 2, 2019

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.)

@JasperHG90
Copy link
Collaborator

@JasperHG90 JasperHG90 commented Feb 4, 2019

I approve changing the licens for the qualtRics R package from GPL-3 to MIT.

@juliasilge juliasilge closed this in 97f1b60 Feb 4, 2019
@juliasilge
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@juliasilge juliasilge commented Feb 6, 2019

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.

@phoebewong
@samuelkaminsky
@eknud

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?

@juliasilge juliasilge reopened this Feb 6, 2019
@samuelkaminsky
Copy link
Contributor

@samuelkaminsky samuelkaminsky commented Feb 6, 2019

I agree with the change to the MIT license.

@eknud
Copy link
Contributor

@eknud eknud commented Feb 6, 2019

@phoebewong
Copy link
Contributor

@phoebewong phoebewong commented Feb 7, 2019

I agree with the change.

@juliasilge
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@juliasilge juliasilge commented Feb 7, 2019

Thank you, all! I appreciate your flexibility and responsiveness. Not to mention your work on this package! 🙌

@juliasilge juliasilge closed this Feb 9, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
5 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.