-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 370
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
Consider relicense #24
Comments
I have no objections to making it more permissive. I'm not familiar with the detailed differences with Apache License 2.0. Do you know a good summary of differences? |
My own summary:
|
Upvote for Apache, because:
|
@koter84, @dstosberg, any thoughts? Please raise objections if you have any. |
No objections against Apache 2.0 from me. I've never cared about MPL enough to fully read and understand their "license steward" mechanics. |
I prefer licenses which don't allow commercial use without distributing the changed sources.. |
It sounds like MPLv2 is the best choice then, since there's not really such a thing as a closed-source shell script. The copyleft nature of MPLv2 ensures that the files from this project remain open, even if included in a proprietary product. |
Not being an expert ( at all ) on these licences ... can you give me an example of what someone might want to be able to do, that they aren't permitted to do on the current license ? |
The thing that most readily comes to mind would be creating an independent script that sources one of the included scripts. Though, this is sort of a grey area. Many terms in the GPL really only apply to binaries and don't make much sense in the context of a shell script. MPLv2 would remove the ambiguity, clearly stating that this file itself, and its contents are protected under copyleft terms. Independent works do not need to carry the same license regardless of how they interact with the covered files. |
Reading up and looking at the various comments, I'll leave things as they are for the moment (since it would need the agreement of all to change it ) If someone wants to create an independent code that includes this script, which they don't want to keep as GPL, they're free to ask about using it. |
In the spirit of Let's Encrypt, which uses Apache License 2.0, I'd like to discuss relicensing to a more permissive license. Naturally, @srvco, as the primary author the choice of GPLv2 was yours to make. As a contributor, do prefer a more permissive licenses though.
As an alternative to Apache License 2.0, you might prefer MPLv2, which keeps the copyleft nature for the included files. Since they're only shell scripts, the GPL's in-memory clause doesn't really apply anyway. MPLv2 wouldn't significantly alter the copyleft status of the included files. In my opinion, MPLv2 strikes a good balance between permissive and copyleft where copyleft is desired.
CC: @koter84 @MichiShyGuy @dstosberg @srvrco
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: