[3/4] License under dual MIT/Apache-2.0 #2078

est31 · 2017-07-25T00:51:28Z

This is a sign-off issue as per RFC 2044 (tracking issue) to license the rust-lang/rfcs repo under dual Apache2/MIT licensing terms.

You are receiving this notification because you have contributed to this repo.

For a discussion on why this move is desired, please see the RFC's text.

While smaller changes can't be copyrighted by law, its non-trivial to find out with certainity whether a given change falls under copyright or not, due to the nature of the matter. Therefore I'm asking you to agree to the new terms even if you consider your contributions to be not copyrightable.

To minimize noise in your inbox, let me use this opportunity to ask those among you who have unmerged RFCs in the queue to add a license header to your RFC drafts. In a few days/weeks I'll go through the list of open RFCs and ask for license headers to be added for the remaining RFCs that lack headers. The RFC's text contains the precise header (and has one already itself). Filing PRs to add headers to your already merged RFCs is not required, they will get headers in bulk.

Checkoff

To agree to the licensing terms, please comment with:

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Thank you!

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

Manishearth · 2017-07-25T00:52:31Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

retep998 · 2017-07-25T01:06:44Z

I license past contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. I also allow licensees to choose to be fluffy rabbits.

petrochenkov · 2017-07-25T01:23:25Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

ranweiler · 2017-07-25T01:28:50Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

RalfJung · 2017-07-25T01:46:36Z

I license past contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

(I see no reason to cover all my future contributions as well; they will be licensed as I create them. I usually refrain from making legally binding statements covering all my future actions; what do I know what the future brings. Also, if the license of this repository changes again, all my contributions following that hypothetical license change would still also be licensed under MIT/Apache-2.0, which doesn't seem intended.)

mirandadam · 2017-07-25T01:55:55Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

mirandadam · 2017-07-25T01:59:26Z

Also, i agree with @RalfJung that the statement about future contributions is superfluous, but I made it anyway.

novalis · 2017-07-25T02:21:56Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

lambda-fairy · 2017-07-25T03:39:59Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

pthariensflame · 2017-07-25T04:46:33Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

oli-obk · 2017-07-25T05:41:51Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

ranma42 · 2017-07-25T06:35:18Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

pitdicker · 2017-07-25T06:37:09Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

pythonesque · 2017-07-25T06:40:10Z

I license past contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

ftxqxd · 2017-07-25T06:42:39Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

LukasKalbertodt · 2017-07-25T06:43:11Z

I license past contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

I agree with @RalfJung here. And while we're at it: I've seen these kinds of license check-offs multiple times now and I wonder if they have been checked by a lawyer once. Would be kind of disappointing if none of this would have any relevance in court...

(oh, apparently @RalfJung edited their post, so that the bot auto-checks their box? I'm not sure how I should proceed right now, sorry 🙈 but isn't the editing-feature reason alone to make this whole process kind of ... fishy?)

chordowl · 2017-07-25T06:57:03Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

mzabaluev · 2017-07-25T07:03:29Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

liigo · 2017-07-25T07:33:03Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

madrugado · 2017-07-25T08:21:34Z

I license past contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

nox · 2017-07-25T08:22:34Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

_{And baguettes are the best bread.}

matklad · 2017-07-25T08:23:33Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

hadronized · 2017-07-25T08:54:27Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

_{^{And chocolatines are the best pastries ever}}

Ms2ger · 2017-07-25T08:58:23Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

patiences · 2017-07-26T03:48:18Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

lifthrasiir · 2017-07-26T06:13:11Z

I put past contributions in the public domain, so it can be used under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. I agree to @RalfJung that the future contributions will have the explicit license statements and no speculative dedication is required.

nrc · 2017-07-27T00:35:44Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

nikomatsakis · 2017-07-27T21:02:13Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

emberian · 2017-07-28T03:33:46Z

@lifthrasiir @RalfJung the original reason to include "future" is so that contributions you make while the relicense process is ongoing apply.

lifthrasiir · 2017-07-28T11:32:03Z

@cmr That sounds a reasonable argument. My original concern was that I'm stating something stronger than MIT/Apache-2.0, so I may want to explicitly separate the PD portion (likely text and simple snippets) and the MIT/Apache-2.0 portion (likely significant code, if any). Will the following statement be sufficient, then?

I license past and future contributions under the terms compatible to the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. Unless explicitly stated, the terms will put them to the public domain.

nagisa · 2017-07-28T20:33:01Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

That being said:

I doubt the legal value of a comment like this;
I generally tend to consider my contributions to be an ownership transfer (to the rust-lang project in the case of any contributions to the projects under the rust-lang umbrella) and I do not want to deal the same BS ever year where everybody pretends to own copyright to a typo fix;
This whole endeavour obviously does not include any of the people who contributed to the RFCs process by influencing the RFCs through the comments (i.e. who are not reflected in the git log), by participating in the pre-RFC project, by participating in the discussions on IRC. I do not think the whole copyright/ownership idea applies well (as presented by this relicensing endeavour) to what is essentially a heavily distributed collaborative work;
Whoops, I edited the comment.

rkjnsn · 2017-07-30T01:42:58Z

I license past contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. I also so license any future contributions made during the license transition.

@nagisa, you may generally consider your contributions to be an ownership transfer, but as far as I understand, creative works (including substantial RFC text) are automatically copyrighted by the author, with all rights reserved, unless the author explicitly states otherwise. Assignment of copyright isn't even valid in all jurisdictions, which is why most contributor agreements have a secondary clause granting a world-wide, perpetual license in the case assignment is not possible. I also believe it is the text itself, not the ideas it contains, that is copyrighted, so I doubt authors of influential comments would have a copyright on the RFC unless their comment was included verbatim, and perhaps not even then depending on how substantial it is. (IANAL, et cetera, et cetera.)

maghoff · 2017-07-30T18:41:59Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

robinst · 2017-07-31T00:25:28Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

lpil · 2017-07-31T12:11:38Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

mahkoh · 2017-07-31T16:26:47Z

I license past contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

mbrubeck · 2017-07-31T17:51:05Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

llogiq · 2017-08-05T07:21:46Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

est31 · 2017-08-13T23:30:15Z

Friendly ping:

pnkfelix · 2017-08-18T09:33:59Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

o11c · 2017-08-21T06:11:11Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

mdinger · 2017-08-29T00:23:27Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Centril · 2018-04-26T07:30:36Z

Triage ping @quantheory

Centril · 2018-10-08T08:37:43Z

Triage ping @quantheory

Dylan-DPC-zz · 2019-12-23T07:55:38Z

@quantheory waiting for you to consent to this

est31 mentioned this issue Jul 25, 2017

Tracking issue for RFC 2044: dual-MIT/Apache2 licensing rust-lang/rust#43461

Open

7 tasks

est31 mentioned this issue Aug 5, 2017

Licensing sign off issue for first time contributors #2096

Closed

24 tasks

est31 mentioned this issue Aug 26, 2017

Allow an optional vert at the beginning of a match branch #1925

Merged

Centril added the T-core Relevant to the core team, which will review and decide on the RFC. label Feb 23, 2018

[3/4] License under dual MIT/Apache-2.0 #2078

[3/4] License under dual MIT/Apache-2.0 #2078

Comments

est31 commented Jul 25, 2017 • edited Loading

Checkoff

Manishearth commented Jul 25, 2017

retep998 commented Jul 25, 2017 • edited Loading

petrochenkov commented Jul 25, 2017

ranweiler commented Jul 25, 2017

RalfJung commented Jul 25, 2017 • edited Loading

mirandadam commented Jul 25, 2017

mirandadam commented Jul 25, 2017

novalis commented Jul 25, 2017

lambda-fairy commented Jul 25, 2017

pthariensflame commented Jul 25, 2017

oli-obk commented Jul 25, 2017 • edited Loading

ranma42 commented Jul 25, 2017

pitdicker commented Jul 25, 2017

pythonesque commented Jul 25, 2017

ftxqxd commented Jul 25, 2017

LukasKalbertodt commented Jul 25, 2017 • edited Loading

chordowl commented Jul 25, 2017

mzabaluev commented Jul 25, 2017

liigo commented Jul 25, 2017

madrugado commented Jul 25, 2017

nox commented Jul 25, 2017

matklad commented Jul 25, 2017

hadronized commented Jul 25, 2017 • edited Loading

Ms2ger commented Jul 25, 2017

patiences commented Jul 26, 2017

lifthrasiir commented Jul 26, 2017

nrc commented Jul 27, 2017

nikomatsakis commented Jul 27, 2017

emberian commented Jul 28, 2017

lifthrasiir commented Jul 28, 2017

nagisa commented Jul 28, 2017 • edited Loading

rkjnsn commented Jul 30, 2017

maghoff commented Jul 30, 2017

robinst commented Jul 31, 2017

lpil commented Jul 31, 2017

mahkoh commented Jul 31, 2017

mbrubeck commented Jul 31, 2017

llogiq commented Aug 5, 2017

est31 commented Aug 13, 2017

pnkfelix commented Aug 18, 2017

o11c commented Aug 21, 2017

mdinger commented Aug 29, 2017

Centril commented Apr 26, 2018

Centril commented Oct 8, 2018

Dylan-DPC-zz commented Dec 23, 2019

est31 commented Jul 25, 2017 •

edited

Loading

retep998 commented Jul 25, 2017 •

edited

Loading

RalfJung commented Jul 25, 2017 •

edited

Loading

oli-obk commented Jul 25, 2017 •

edited

Loading

LukasKalbertodt commented Jul 25, 2017 •

edited

Loading

hadronized commented Jul 25, 2017 •

edited

Loading

nagisa commented Jul 28, 2017 •

edited

Loading