Migrate to MIT License #2054

Closed
cweagans opened this Issue Feb 17, 2012 · 213 comments

Projects

None yet
@cweagans

I'm wanting to include Bootstrap in a Drupal distribution that I'm working on. Because I'm using the Drupal.org packaging system, I cannot include Bootstrap because the APLv2 is not compatible with GPLv2 (which is what all code on Drupal.org must be licensed as, per our license policy: http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q4)

I was wondering if you'd be willing to either release Bootstrap under another license (in parallel to the Apache license) that would be compatible with our packaging system, or license Bootstrap specifically to Drupal.org contributors under a compatible license.

@caniszczyk
Contributor

I believe the code on Drupal.org is under the GPLv2 or later, which is fine.

"Apache 2 software can therefore be included in GPLv3 projects, because the GPLv3 license accepts our software into GPLv3 works." [1]

[1] - http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

@cweagans

Nope - everything is licensed as GPLv2 right now. When the packaging system puts things together, it includes the GPLv2 license, and APLv2 cannot be relicensed as GPLv2.

@Crell
Crell commented Feb 17, 2012

Drupal.org is GPLv2-and-later. We do not permit GPLv3-only code at this time. APL is only compatible with GPLv3, not v2.

cweagans, you may want to see if we can allow a GPLv3 library via the auto-packager for distributions. I'm not sure if that team will accept a GPLv3 library in that case. If not, then yes something GPLv2-compatible would be necessary.

@caniszczyk
Contributor

I'm all for finding ways to make this work. There's pretty much no chance the bootstrap license will ever change. Is there a way we can have Drupal move to the newer version of GPLv3? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v3HowToUpgrade

I'd be willing to put in some cycles to talk to the right people over in Drupal land to make this work.

@cweagans

There's no chance of licensing it under an additional license? That is, it would be concurrently available under APL and (some other license that's compatible with our packaging system).

If not, I'd guess that Crell is at least one of the people to talk to - he's the licensing guy for the Drupal Association. He'd probably know who else to talk to about it. I imagine that there will be a significant amount of pushback on this, though...changing the license of Drupal and every single contrib project on Drupal.org is no easy task.

@Crell
Crell commented Feb 18, 2012

Changing Drupal's license from GPLv2 to GPLv3 would be a very simple change administratively/legally and a monumental task culturally. It's not something that's going to happen any time soon, although I would like to see it happen eventually for various reasons.

@caniszczyk
Contributor

I understand that pain well, isn't the GPL wonderful?

I would advise that the drupal.org community look at having module authors choose between the GPLv2 or v3 license, this would then allow folks to embed Apache licensed code into their projects without issues. The APLv2 is a very liberal license.

In the end, I'm all for making this work somehow. I mean, according the Drupal FAQ [1], you're able to redistribute Drupal under the v2 or v3 license of the GPL so I don't see why this is an issue to begin with.

[1] - http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q1

@Crell
Crell commented Feb 18, 2012

Because there are GPLv2-only libraries out there that people want to be able to integrate as well. :-) There's unfortunate subtly involved that I have the misfortune of having been the point person to sort out.

We want the code coming off of Drupal.org to always be legally compatible with code coming off of Drupal.org. Many modules bridge to other 3rd party libraries. Some of those are GPLv2 only, some are GPLv3 only. Therefore, to get the widest possible compatibility we require that Drupal.org code be GPLv2-AND-later. The option of which to use is made by the receiver, NOT the module developer. It cannot be, or else you could end up with a GPLv2-only module and a GPLv3-only module, both on d.o, and then that's just a total fail because you couldn't distribute them together.

Yes, this causes issues for APLv2 code. Bootstrap is not the first time we've seen this. At some point I do want us to move to GPLv3, but that is not on the table for the foreseeable future. Licensing changes for Drupal.org are not worth discussing here, as that boat takes too long to turn.

@cweagans

I suspected that a licensing change for Drupal.org code would be painful, but I had to hold out hope. So, given that, is there any chance at all of distributing Bootstrap under an additional license that might be a little more friendly to our packaging system?

I know of at least three projects (including mine) that would love to be able to include Bootstrap, but cannot due to the license. http://drupal.org/project/twitter_bootstrap and http://drupal.org/sandbox/rerooting/1429486 and http://drupal.org/project/droptracker. I suspect that more projects would use Bootstrap if it were easily included by our packaging system.

@mdo
Member
mdo commented Feb 18, 2012

Let's ask @caniszczyk about this stuff.

@cweagans

He's been commenting on this issue already ;)

It would be really awesome if Bootstrap could be distributed under anything compatible with the GPLv2 license along with the current Apache license.

@mdo
Member
mdo commented Feb 18, 2012

Totally missed that one! Sounds like it's not really an issue then?

@cweagans

@markdotto, I don't follow. It's still certainly an issue - please read all of the comments on this issue.

@caniszczyk
Contributor

Changing the license of Bootstrap isn't practical given that the APLv2 is already a very permissive license and already allows Bootstrap to be embedded in all sorts of commercial and non-commercial applications. I would advise that the Drupal community take a better stance on adopting the GPLv3 and the mixing of libraries. Technically, Bootstrap can be considered a separate program (or in Drupal's case, a module) so mixing it shouldn't be an issue depending on your interpretation. Also, Bootstrap can be used by folks who run Drupal modules on their own server. It's only in the case of drupal.org that this is an issue.

It would be good to start turning the boat sooner than later. It's nice to give your users a choice in the matter.

@caniszczyk caniszczyk closed this Feb 18, 2012
@mdo
Member
mdo commented Feb 18, 2012

Sorry, I meant to say that this doesn't sound like an issue we can resolve easily. To expand on that though, I'm all for anyone and everyone using Bootstrap. Licensing issues suck ass and I'd like to avoid any issue if possible. If @caniszczyk thinks it's kosher for us to have two licenses, so be it.

@caniszczyk
Contributor

Technically everyone can given the terms of the APLv2, it's just that the GPLv2 puts drupal.org in a precarious situation since they are distributing code which triggers the nasty in the GPLv2. The APLv2 is a permissive license that is great for commercial development and proprietary redistribution. Code that is distributed under the APLv2 and other permissive licenses can be integrated into proprietary products and redistributed under a broad variety of other terms.

@cweagans

I'm not suggesting the the license for Bootstrap be changed. I'm suggesting that it's released under a dual-license. That is, when users download it, they'd be able to choose between the Apache license and (some other license). This practice is common, and is used by (as an example) jQuery and Sizzle (the library that jQuery uses for selectors). jQuery is released under the MIT license AND the GPL. Sizzle is released under the MIT, GPL, and BSD licenses. When you download, you choose which license you're going to use.

The problem with changing the license for the Drupal community is a very very large one. Not only would we be changing the license for core, but we'd also be changing the license for every single other module, theme, and installation profile posted on Drupal.org. There are currently around 16000 projects on Drupal.org and making that change is a multi-year ordeal, I'd guess.

@cweagans

That is, anyone who is still using Bootstrap under the Apache license can continue to do so. If Bootstrap were released under another license (in addition to the Apache license), then users downloading Bootstrap could choose to use that new license instead if they wanted to.

@caniszczyk
Contributor

When I'm back in the office next week, I'll look at what we can do. We may be able to work something out where we license Bootstrap specifically to Drupal.org contributors only under a compatible license.

@Crell, can you email me at zx@twitter.com to start this discussion?

@realityking
Contributor

There's some talk of making the next Joomla admin template based on Bootstrap. Nothing's final and especially the license situation hasn't been discussed at all yet but we're pretty much in the same boat. If we make Joomla GPLv3 we basically force all extensions to change their license as well, some of them probably have some GPLv2 only code. Dual licensing bootstrap APLv2 and "GPLv2 or later" would certainly be very helpful.

@cweagans

For anyone that's interested, the related issue about adding Bootstrap to the Drupal.org packaging system is here: http://drupal.org/node/1445226

@WraithKenny

WordPress suffers the same doom as Drupal and Joomla... Dual Licensing would be awesome...

@gagarine

I agree dual licensing is a good (only) way to make bootstrap available to GPL2 only code and keep the advantage of the Apache license.

@norrs
norrs commented Jun 8, 2012

@caniszczyk : Is there any new thoughts of making bootstrap dual licensed so we can easily use it in our GPL2 licensed project?

What is the down side of dual licensing bootstrap, seen from twitter/bootstrap-devs view of point?

@sun
sun commented Oct 2, 2012

This issue seems to block wide-spread adoption of Bootstrap in Drupal, WordPress, Joomla, and potentially many more GPL-based web frameworks/content management systems. Is there any chance to resurrect this issue? :)

The common solution to combat the problem space is indeed to dual-license the code under GPLv2+ and XYZ (here: APLv2).

@evo42 from @gentics might be able to provide assistance on details, as they just recently re-licensed @alohaeditor from APL to GPL (though note that was re-licensed, not dual-licensed).

@evo42
evo42 commented Oct 2, 2012

... forwarding the licensing question to @draftkraft -- he knows all details about the changes regarding @alohaeditor and was talking to a lot of ppl. regarding licence issues

@caniszczyk
Contributor

This is still on my radar and will be part of the work of moving bootstrap into its own organization.

My thoughts are to use the MIT license, I dislike the GPL and the mess it causes :)

The fun part of this effort will be getting every contributors explicit permission to make the change:
https://github.com/twitter/bootstrap/graphs/contributors

I will re-open this issue and put it in the community category, assigned to me.

@caniszczyk caniszczyk reopened this Oct 2, 2012
@caniszczyk caniszczyk was assigned Oct 2, 2012
@evo42
evo42 commented Oct 2, 2012

@caniszczyk that sounds like fun ;-)

for @alohaeditor all contributors were "forced" to sign a CLA before a pull request was accepted (on the one hand this maybe scares some people a bit... sign stuff for open source?! print, sign, scan, send... but re-licensing [for Drupal] was then quite easy...) http://aloha-editor.org/contribution.php

@sun
sun commented Oct 3, 2012

MIT sounds most sensible to me — essentially removing almost all license restrictions, except for the original author/copyright statement.

Off-hand, I don't know whether dual-licensing involves the same challenges and requirements as re-licensing. In any case, I can only guess that @alohaeditor considered that option, too, so I'm eager to learn what insights @draftkraft can share with us.

@sprice
Contributor
sprice commented Oct 3, 2012

fwiw jQuery recently removed the GPL license from their project as it seems dual-licensing created a number of problems.

According to the linked blog post other projects are "free to take a jQuery Foundation project, make changes, and re-license it under the GPL". Can't the same be done with Drupal using Bootstrap? How does the Drupal project integrate jQuery now that it is MIT only?

@cweagans
cweagans commented Oct 3, 2012

GPL2 projects can pull in MIT and BSD projects, since MIT and BSD can be relicensed as GPL2.

GPL2 projects can NOT pull in Apache licensed projects, since APL projects cannot be relicensed GPL2 (they can be relicensed as GPL3, but we (Drupal) are not a GPL3 project yet).

That's the purpose of this issue. Distributing Boot strap under the MIT license would allow Drupal, Joomla, and Wordpress to use Bootstrap and be fully compliant with the licenses.

@cweagans
cweagans commented Oct 3, 2012

As a sidenote, I wrote an email that's still sitting in my Gmail drafts folder (and has been for months) that is addressed to all Bootstrap contributors asking their opinion on relicensing Bootstrap. AFAIK, this is a necessary step, but I haven't been able to move forward on it (Chris asked me to not send that out).

@sprice
Contributor
sprice commented Oct 3, 2012

ah. thanks for clearing that up!

@cweagans
cweagans commented Oct 3, 2012

I'd also like to note that we're trying to get a bootstrap-based theme into Drupal core in this issue: http://drupal.org/node/1801582

I don't want to rush things, but the deadline for a working patch is 10/15, and our feature freeze is 12/1. If Bootstrap can be relicensed by then, we'll be in a very very good position.

@mdo
Member
mdo commented Oct 31, 2012

@caniszczyk Where do we stand on this one?

@jeff-h jeff-h referenced this issue in leafo/lessphp Nov 6, 2012
Closed

GPL v2 licence #341

@tardyp
tardyp commented Jan 21, 2013

@caniszczyk, We have the same situation for @buildbot. For that reason, we had to switch to fundation, but it is not as complete as bootstrap, and has much less ecosystem. So we really would like to have this solved.

@tsi
tsi commented Jan 21, 2013

FWIW Joomla 3 (licenced GPL v2) includes Bootstrap v2.1.0

@ThomasWaldmann

MoinMoin Wiki is also GPL v2 or later (and due to same reasons as outlined above, we can't take Apache License v2 code).

@trumbitta
Contributor

@caniszczyk , @mdo: any news about this?

@vaceletm

Hello,

We, at Tuleap project (http://tuleap.net, gplv2+), are also interested in this (re/double)licensing. As for Drupal we have large code base with more than 80 different copyright owners.

This issue is marked for bootstrap 3.0 does it means that the goal is to have it done by then ?

@ThomasWaldmann

This issue is marked for bootstrap 3.0 does it means that the goal is to have it done by then ?

@caniszczyk
Contributor

We would like to but haven't had the time yet to get confirmations from all the contributors to relicense their existing commits under the MIT license.

@cweagans

Chris, I volunteered months ago to send out emails and work up a spreadsheet to get everyone's permission. I'm still willing to do that if you want. I have extracted everyone's email address from the git history. If that's the only bottleneck here, let me take care of it and we can be done with this (already too long) issue.

@trumbitta
Contributor

Are you sure it is not in the powers of the copyright holders (@mdo and
@fat, I suppose) to decide a license change at any time?

On Tuesday, March 19, 2013, Chris Aniszczyk wrote:

We would like to but haven't had the time yet to get confirmations from
all the contributors to relicense their existing commits under the MIT
license.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/twitter/bootstrap/issues/2054#issuecomment-15091050
.

William Ghelfi
Director of Research - Entando Srl

Web: http://www.entando.com/
Skype: wiz_of_id
GitHub: trumbitta
Twitter: @trumbitta

"[...] for it is only about things which concern us most profoundly that we
lie clearly and with profound conviction."
Michael Moorcock - Elric of Melniboné

@trumbitta
Contributor

@caniszczyk AFAIK, given the last line of the README - "Copyright 2012 Twitter, Inc under the Apache 2.0 license." - the copyright is held by Twitter, Inc at the moment and - still AFAIK - who holds the copyright can change the license at any time without asking anything to anyone.

Am I wrong?

@neverendingo

@trumbitta from http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html 4.4 :
"You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License."
That basically means you can go away from the apl at any time.

@tardyp
tardyp commented Mar 20, 2013

@neverendingo, this is not true. IANAL, but
" provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License" means: provided the new license is compatible with APL, which GPLv2 is not (because of patent policy being fundamentaly different)

So only the original copyright holder of bootstrap can change the license to something not including the problematic condition.

Those are mdo + fat for the majority, but also the whole list of people listed by git log

@trumbitta
Contributor

The copyright holder is Twitter Inc. at the moment

On Wednesday, March 20, 2013, Pierre Tardy wrote:

@neverendingo https://github.com/neverendingo, this is not true. IANAL,
but
" provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise
complies with the conditions stated in this License" means: provided the
new license is compatible with APL, which GPLv2 is not (because of patent
policy being fundamentaly different)

So only the original copyright holder of bootstrap can change the license
to something not including the problematic condition.

Those are mdo + fat for the majority, but also the whole list of people
listed by git log


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/twitter/bootstrap/issues/2054#issuecomment-15186762
.

William Ghelfi
Director of Research - Entando Srl

Web: http://www.entando.com/
Skype: wiz_of_id
GitHub: trumbitta
Twitter: @trumbitta

"[...] for it is only about things which concern us most profoundly that we
lie clearly and with profound conviction."
Michael Moorcock - Elric of Melniboné

@cweagans

We should not be discussing making a license change without getting input from contributors, regardless of if that is or is not legal. However, technically, we can't do that anyways because there is no copyright assignment agreement that is required to contribute to Bootstrap, so contributors still own their code and we can't just relicense that without their consent.

@caniszczyk
Contributor

Indeed.

The quickest way to do this would be to get contributors to affirm that they are willing to license their contributions to the MIT license. This could even be done on this issue if I think about it to log it as public record.

@cweagans

I will reach out to everyone later today.

@caniszczyk
Contributor

Thanks @cweagans !

@nterray
nterray commented Mar 20, 2013

That's good news!

It would be awesome to have dual licensing for BS3…

Thanks @cweagans !

@cweagans

I didn't end up getting to this when I thought I would, but I have time blocked out tomorrow for this task.

@caniszczyk
Contributor

Thanks for spear heading this @cweagans, this is a great start.

@wilfra
Contributor
wilfra commented Mar 25, 2013

I don't have an opinion but received the email. Count my vote as a proxy w/ the majority?

@cweagans

Noted, @wilfra. Maybe I should add an option for "Don't care" =P

@cweagans

Done, @wilfra - you can now express your apathy :)

@piscis
Contributor
piscis commented Mar 25, 2013

👍 for MIT

@BigBlueHat
Contributor

Done. Bootstrap will soon be compatible with :neckbeard:

@mainerror
Contributor

Yes to MIT license from me.

@cweagans

After ~10 hours, looks like we're ~halfway done collecting responses.

If anyone has RT powers for twitter.com/twbootstrap, I'd love a RT to help get the word out :) https://twitter.com/cweagans/status/316439646726918144

@cweagans

Also, I've added a sheet to the Google doc that lists the responses to date compared to the output of git log --format="%aE"| sort | uniq in the Bootstrap repo. This should help give a picture of where we're at. So far, it's looking like an overwhelming yes.

@beakr
beakr commented Mar 26, 2013

👍 Completely support it.

@joshlangner

Just a minor observation: Everyone's emails are being displayed on a public / non-authenticated Google Docs page (The Results). Intentional?

P.S. MIT FTW!

@mdo
Member
mdo commented Mar 26, 2013

@joshlangner It's worth noting most folks have their emails list publicly anyway—it's all in the publicly accessible git history here. It's also on most profile pages here on GitHub. However, it is still a good point. We should probably hide that, @cweagans. No need for the results to be public honestly.

@lsmith77

FYI .. the doctrine project used this tool here to handle the migration from LGPL to MIT:
https://github.com/beberlei/license-manager

@necolas
Contributor
necolas commented Mar 26, 2013

Google Doc isn't working for me. So consider this me agreeing to have my contributions MIT'ed.

@cweagans

@mdo @joshlangner, since I was the one that suggested the change, I did not feel comfortable having the results closed off to everyone else. Plus, emails are not private in git repositories anyways. If a bot wants to parse a crapload of javascript to view a google spreadsheet containing a handful of email addresses, why not? He worked hard for it.

@lsmith77, I wish I'd have known about that sooner. Would have saved a ton of work (still might, but I don't have time to install it right now).

@cweagans

On a related note, @caniszczyk, do we need to have responses from everyone? I got a few bounce messages when I sent out the email. Can we set a cutoff date, after which lack of explicit consent/dissent will be construed as apathy?

@jankovarik

Hey guys, I just read this Tweet: https://twitter.com/cweagans/status/316439646726918144 and I can promise that Glyphicons Halflings are going to be released under the MIT license with the new update / Bootstrap 3.0. Before it happens, I incorporate this in to the license on the web, just to be sure: http://glyphicons.com/glyphicons-licenses/#update

@melvingb

phpBB is also under the GPLv2 license is there a way to make compatible the apache license?

@cweagans

No. The apache license is not compatible with Version 2 of the GPL at all, hence this issue :)

@melvingb

For bootstrap version 3.0 change the license or continue the same?.
I designed a style based on bootstrap but also style is under the gplv2 license but is not compatible with the license of the bootstrap.
That is a serious problem for which we are designing or using narrow framework.

@fhars
fhars commented Mar 30, 2013

In copyright terms, no answer (or apathy) usually has to be counted as a strict "no" to relicensing. To be safe, you must either collect a yes from every contributor, or rewrite all code contributed by people you cannot get a yes from, at least for contributions of sufficient creative value (i.a. maybe not for typo fixes or so, but the true limit can only be determined by a court).

See for example how OpenStreetMap handled their relicensing: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License_Relicensing_FAQ#What_happens_if_not_everyone_agrees.3F

@trumbitta
Contributor

I still think the copyright holder of everything is Twitter, Inc. as stated
in the README...

On Saturday, March 30, 2013, fhars wrote:

In copyright terms, no answer (or apathy) usually has to be counted as a
strict "no" to relicensing. To be safe, you must either collect a yes from
every contributor, or rewrite all code contributed by people you cannot get
a yes from, at least for contributions of sufficient creative value (i.a.
maybe not for typo fixes or so, but the true limit can only be determined
by a court).

See for example how OpenStreetMap handled their relicensing:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License_Relicensing_FAQ#What_happens_if_not_everyone_agrees.3F


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/twitter/bootstrap/issues/2054#issuecomment-15673565
.

William Ghelfi
Director of Research - Entando Srl

Web: http://www.entando.com/
Skype: wiz_of_id
GitHub: trumbitta
Twitter: @trumbitta

"[...] for it is only about things which concern us most profoundly that we
lie clearly and with profound conviction."
Michael Moorcock - Elric of Melniboné

@melvingb
melvingb commented Apr 3, 2013

Then it is possible to release a style under the GPLv2 license although this fact with the bootstrap framework?

@cweagans
cweagans commented Apr 3, 2013

@nextgen666, I think you're OT in this thread. You should consult an IP lawyer or open a separate issue.

@caniszczyk, @mdo: It looks like we have a ton of yes and don't care votes and two No votes. Do we need a unanimous response from the contributors to make this happen? Or can they be overruled since other people are in agreement? How do we handle this? I guess what I'm asking is, is this a vote? Or is this a "get everyone to sign off on the change" process?

@melvingb
melvingb commented Apr 3, 2013

@cweagans It is the same question.

@mdo
Member
mdo commented Apr 3, 2013

@nextgen666 I believe they're compatible licenses, but that requires research on your own end. Don't hold me to that.

@cweagans As I understand it, everyone has to say yes. @caniszczyk might know better about what to do next, but that's how I've understood it. Does your list of contributors include everyone from the v3 pull request? Lots of folks have contributed there as well.

@millette
millette commented Apr 3, 2013

If someone says no to his contribution, you can always rewrite that contribution or remove it. Better yet, understand why they're against the change and try to change their mind.

@melvingb
melvingb commented Apr 3, 2013

Ok, thanks @mdo

@tierra
Contributor
tierra commented Apr 3, 2013

Given the response so far, I don't doubt that most of the "no" responses turn into a "yes" if it comes down to either that, or having their contributions removed.

At least one of those responses obviously doesn't fully understand that Bootstrap is already under a permissive license, and that this change is to help GPL projects, not hurt them.

@memht
memht commented Apr 14, 2013

tierra, if the license doesn't change, i cannot include it in my GPLv2 projects... that's hurting me and everyone else using similar licences.

@jrobeson

any updates on this?

@bui bui referenced this issue in znc/znc Apr 22, 2013
Closed

Change license to Apache 2.0 #311

@jcheng5
jcheng5 commented Apr 26, 2013

Here are the two commits by the folks who voted no (as was their prerogative--no disrespect intended):

d6e3b6b
7d1c8c2

These are both pretty trivial changes; one is fixing a mistaken class name in the docs, and the other is just a trivial refactor (almost just a reindent) of less that could be reverted with no ill effects.

@mdo
Member
mdo commented Apr 26, 2013

I'll reach out to them and see what I can do, @jcheng5.

@cweagans We will have to do the same thing for the v3 contributors in #6342. Would you be willing to reach out to them as well so we can make that change now? If you like, I can also send the message if you have a list of emails.

@nextgenthemes
Contributor

I am glad to see like I am not the only person voted no ;) In the email voting there were actually 3 including me. One guy went with the crowd?

I just wanted to make things clear. I don't want to piss someone off here, my commit was very trivial indeed, but it was lessifying not just indenting to be clear ;). I hope it takes no too much time to revert it. If someone else will do the exact same changes after I won't sue for copyright infringement I promise ;)

I try to make it short. I believe the GPLv3 is a much superior license to the MIT or other licenses because of the fact it forces (in a good way) people to let they code open in every sense of the word. It was carefully designed by to address issues like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization. If you think Bootstrap would never be affected by that, well think again. With all the mobile devices and mobile apps coming out there is a high possibility I think that some company will develop some HTML5 app using BS and then locking it down on a hardware basis. That would be a sad day (at least for me). Thats only one example.

As stated above just on other words.

GPLv2 (or later) = Dual License GPLv2 + GPLv3

Apache License 2.0 = 100% compatible with GPLv3

Also note that: Apache 2.0 is NOT Compatible with GPLv2

The thing that i missed was that you can't downgrade the GPLv3 of course. That seems to be a matter for Drupal as I read above since they don't accept v3 into the repos. For WordPress however this is not the case http://make.wordpress.org/plugins/2012/05/11/cross-posted-from-the-main-development-blog-the/. Could not find anything on themes though.

Anyway I am doing this to make the point that I strongly believe in the GPLv3 and do not want any code if me even end up locked down somewhere. I know why many may think of MIT as "more open" just because you can do more with it if you see it that way but for me its the other way around. I also think this "we stay GPLv2 or later for the absolute maximum compatibility" thinking should be come to an end. For sure that would painful at first but later it would be beneficial for the communities. If some huge projects would take the lead on that others would be forced to finally upgrade to v3.

I would be embarrassed if not all what I said above is true because I actually don't like lawyer speech and license texts at all and for that matter MIT is short and sweet but there Is a good reason the GPLv3 has long complicated text in it.

Ok enough ... could go on for hours. I hope you'll understand.

PS: Guess I failed on the "short". Who is the other "no" voter? clap clap

It's easy to stand in the crowd but it takes courage to stand alone

@jcheng5
jcheng5 commented Apr 29, 2013

@nextgenthemes When I looked at the spreadsheet, there were two votes that appeared to be the same person with two different e-mails, and I could only find one commit for that person.

I am not a committer to bootstrap, so I'm not trying to assert any kind of moral authority here, and I hope I don't come off that way. But I would like to give you my perspective, as the author of a GPLv3-licensed web framework (@rstudio/shiny) that is trying to move to "GPLv2 or later". We have large customers that we can't ignore who have told us that their legal departments do not permit GPLv3 software in their organization, but GPLv2 is OK. I don't defend their position but I also have no delusions that I will be able to argue them into changing their policy. This leaves us with a decision to either offer them a commercial license, or go with a permissive license like BSD, which if you are a GPL true believer is almost as bad as a commercial license. What we would prefer to offer them is a GPLv2+ license.

I understand the Tivoization concern but it feels like hairsplitting to me when it's already completely legal to make a derivative work from Bootstrap and close-source it.

@nterray
nterray commented Apr 29, 2013

@nextgenthemes I fully understand your point.

However this forbids some project to use bootstrap as it's nearly impossible for them to migrate to another license than GPLv2. When your code base is more than 13 years old, when you have to knock at the door of lawyers of big companies (wich don't know that they contributed to a FLOSS project), and when you have to find copyright holders since original commiter is dead, then it feels impossible to change the license.

As @tierra said, "this change is to help GPL projects, not hurt them". Those projects need Bootstrap to help them offer a good user experience. Without having a GPLv2 compatible license, those projects will have to look at other alternatives like Foundation, wich does not offer the same level of finish than Bootstrap. 😞

@matzke
matzke commented May 10, 2013

MIT +1

@AliMD
AliMD commented May 19, 2013

MIT 👍
Why you dont switch to mit in v3 ?
Bootstrap can web push forward with mit license .

@ThomasWaldmann

can someone update the current status about this? is there stuff happening we don't see here?

what's the plan / timeframe?

@sun
sun commented Jul 27, 2013

Thanks for the backstory, @gstein. At this point in history, however, this just means that some people believe Santa Claus is purple. I still believe it's brown, but the vast majority of people interprets him (her?) as red.

As long as the original author does not clarify on the matter, all of this are speculations only. In this concrete case, speculations by well-paid lawyers. The more you pay them, the more you believe you can trust their interpretation.

Given a history of ~10 years of trying to get a clarification on the matter without results, it is only sensible for a project like Bootstrap to choose the path of least resistance and ultimate clarity: Relicensing the work to MIT/Expat inherently eliminates the entire drama.

That's what we're doing here. Focus on opportunity. Being able to use it as part of their distributions is what ultimately matters for a giant amount of potential users.

Who really cares for the ASF/FSF interpretation conflict? What kind of issue are you trying to solve? This very issue here, or a very abstract licensing issue that no one wants to get involved with in the first place?

@gstein
gstein commented Jul 28, 2013

My point is that Bootstrap doesn't have to go through this pain. IOW, simply close this issue and leave it as ALv2. Nobody can demonstrate a conflict beyond "FSF website says so". Save a lot of effort, that has been predicated on one person's very arguable declaration from a decade ago.

@torstenfabricius

Hi Greg,

I think, you miss the point.

For me in person it makes not any difference, if Bootstrap is ALv2 or
ALv3 or MIT, when I want to USE it in ONE of my projects.

BUT it is relevant, when I and the community I am committed with want to
distribute it in our software as implemented preset default, as a few
other software communities want to do aswell.

We all cannot ship Bootstrap with our software, as our software(s) are
licenced with the LGPL, which simply cannot be re-licenced to the
stronger GPL or AL.

Thus it is up to the Bootstrap community to deside, wether it is useful
for the community and the further development of Bootstrap on the one
hand and (responsive) webdesign on the other hand, if the Bootstrap
community gives all these projects the opportunity to ship it
preconfigured - or not.

The majority of the Bootstrap community did deside, that it would be
better to allow those projects to ship it by dual licensing instead of
not allowing us by keeping a single AL licence model.

I am looking forward to use Bootstrap in my future projects, without the
need of either multiple times of implementation or researching for
alternatives.
So do a lot of other people.

Greetz,
Torsten

Am 28.07.2013 03:05, schrieb Greg Stein:

My point is that Bootstrap doesn't have to go through this pain. IOW,
simply close this issue and leave it as ALv2. Nobody can demonstrate a
conflict beyond "FSF website says so". Save a lot of effort, that has
been predicated on one person's very arguable declaration from a decade ago.

@gstein
gstein commented Jul 28, 2013

Oh, I hear you, @torstenfabricius. We all want to be able to use and combine open/free components into the stuff we build. Totally agree, on that part. I simply question your belief that you cannot incorporate ALv2 code into your LGPL or GPL combined works (v2 or v3). I'd do it in a heartbeat, without worry. Why do you believe that your project cannot incorporate ALv2 code? (and thus, what is preventing you from using Bootstrap in your project?)

Let's make this even more concrete: say you do use Bootstrap in your project. Do you honestly believe the Bootstrap people are going to knock on your door and say, "you're violating the ALv2 license we put onto Bootstrap. you shouldn't be using it that way."?? Really? Do you think they will that to your downstream users?

@zdroid
zdroid commented Jul 28, 2013

Avoid this discussion as thing where you talk to law. Here is place to
chose to use or don't use MIT license in BS 3.

2013/7/28 Greg Stein notifications@github.com

Oh, I hear you, @torstenfabricius https://github.com/torstenfabricius.
We all want to be able to use and combine open/free components into the
stuff we build. Totally agree, on that part. I simply question your belief
that you cannot incorporate ALv2 code into your LGPL or GPL combined works
(v2 or v3). I'd do it in a heartbeat, without worry. Why do you believe
that your project cannot incorporate ALv2 code? (and thus, what is
preventing you from using Bootstrap in your project?)

Let's make this even more concrete: say you do use Bootstrap in your
project. Do you honestly believe the Bootstrap people are going to knock on
your door and say, "you're violating the ALv2 license we put onto
Bootstrap. you shouldn't be using it that way."?? Really? Do you think they
will that to your downstream users?

@jrobeson

@gstein: whether the problem is real or not.. i do know one thing. The apache license is a blocker for using bootstrap in zencart themes and drupal themes. both teams have made public statements regarding the usage of apache licensed components in their repositories. If one wants to distribute a bootstrap based theme then person who installs the theme must acquire the bootstrap files and install them.

EDIT: looks like i lied about the zencart statement being public. for some reason this page on the forum is protected.

@gstein
gstein commented Jul 28, 2013

@jrobeson no no... a simple mistake rather than "lie". that term is much too harsh. please don't worry.

Go ahead and ask those teams about the basis for their public statements. Please see if you can find a reason or a description of the problem with incorporating ALv2 code into zencart or drupal. I'd be very interested!

In short: ALv2 is permissive, so why do you believe it interferes?

@draftkraft

@gstein imho the question is not whether YOU see any problem with integrating an ALv2 into a GLPv2 project but whether there is a POTENTIAL legal issue, because the situation is not clear (FSF vs Apache INTERPRETATION) and the legal SECURITY for someone using a software that does integrate both licenses. And that one (whether a person or any organisation) if using such software runs into the RISK to use/sell/provide software or services with potential legal issues. I agree, that the bootstrap project in this case will not sue anyone if he does so, their intension seems clear. But any developer contributing to bootstrap COULD (risk) sue that one and further any competition of the one COULD (bigger risk) sue him because they could accuse him to violate a license and distort competition. The potential legal risk that arises from that fact could discourage someone (person or organisation) in doing it. Think of Google, Adobe and others (they even must not be such big global players, could be local players too) will not use such software because they could end up in a legal conflict costing them millions of dollars/euros/whatever for lawyers, penalties, compensation, etc. Further the legal interpretation of the situation could be interpreted differently in every country. Can you guarantee this will not happen?

I wonder why you are arguing that hard against that step?

Wasn't it you the one saying that this only blocks time that could be invested otherwise?
So, the bootstrap projects has wisely chosen a way to avoid legal problems and provide legal secure. That is awesome! Why are you blocking time of people (by continuously asking them for explanation), that took a decision based on their proprietary needs, and keep telling the same thing without the will to understand or accept the situation or circumstances other (people or projects) are acting in?

@gstein
gstein commented Jul 28, 2013

Heh. @draftkraft: I'm not blocking anybody (nor could I hope or want to). Just hoping people stop, think, and understand what and why this course of action is being taken. There are a lot of comments in this issue that lead me to believe there is a general misunderstanding of how permissively-licensed code (MIT/BSD/ALv2) gets combined into a larger work. And that moving from ALv2 to MIT somehow helps that purported "problem".

Note: my posts have consumed (say) a couple hours of others' time. This issue, and its ALv2->MIT efforts, have consumed (likely) at least hundred hours or more. And it isn't even complete.

[ btw, @draftkraft: you may want to read up on "[legal] standing". the "competition" cannot sue for license violation ]

@gstein
gstein commented Jul 28, 2013

btw, @draftkraft if you'd like to talk about potential legal risks, then I would ask you why the MIT license is safer? It does not explicitly speak to any of the rights in 17 USC § 106. You only hope that a court will interpret the MIT license's language favorably with respect to § 106. Modern licenses like GPLv3 and ALv2 have taken into account the terminology and case law regarding recent copyright code.

@gstein
gstein commented Jul 29, 2013

@jrobeson thanks. already saw that in a comment earlier. but I took your pointer as an implicit request to post there, so I did :-)

@juthilo
Member
juthilo commented Jul 30, 2013

Just to keep y'all up to date, I have just sent out emails to all the not-yet-responded people, which included a URL to the pre-filled form. Motto: 3 clicks, less than 2 minutes. Certainly did pay off in terms of incoming responses. :)

@pmclanahan

IANAL: But my take is that the Apache 2 license is superior because it provides some patent protection. The GPL seems to exist to force developers to adopt the license or force them not to use the software. For something claiming freedom there seems to be a lot of force going around, including attempting to force Bootstrap to adopt a license that is not of their choice.

My opinion is that if a project like Drupal wants to use truly free software, perhaps they should set their software truly free. I've had to avoid many libraries over the years because of the GPL so I just can't bring myself to be sympathetic, especially since users of Drupal are in no way affected by this and can easily include Bootstrap themselves.

@mainerror
Contributor

@pmclanahan This issue is about migrating Bootstrap to the MIT license, not GPL license, or some sort of APL vs. GPL holy war.

@pmclanahan

@mainerror I know. My comment was in regards to the GPL project attempting to force others to in some way modify their licensing or behavior to do what they feel is right. I simply disagree. The Bootstrap project chose a license that they liked and are now being asked to change it. Software is licensed GPL in order to prevent certain classes of people from using it. I just dislike all of that very much.

@pmclanahan

All that said, I've contributed all of a single 1 line change to Bootstrap, so my opinion should likely not count for much, and the vast majority seem cool with the change. This is just me shaking my single tiny fist in the air ;)

@torstenfabricius

Hi Paul,

what do you dislike?

Do you dislike, that the Bootstrap project is asked to dual-license,
which should allow certain classes of people to use it aswell (by
default integration in MIT or LGPL software for example), ...

... or do you dislike, that software is licensed GPL in order to prevent
certain classes of people from using it?

Torsten

Am 30.07.2013 16:22, schrieb Paul McLanahan:

@mainerror https://github.com/mainerror I know. My comment was in
regards to the GPL project attempting to force others to in some way
modify their licensing or behavior to do what they feel is right. I
simply disagree. The Bootstrap project chose a license that they liked
and are now being asked to change it. Software is licensed GPL in order
to prevent certain classes of people from using it. I just dislike all
of that very much.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#2054 (comment).

@pmclanahan

@torstenfabricius I don't consider "projects using the GPL" to be a class of people. That's a bit of code choosing to be exclusive and therefore being excluded by their own decision. It's also likely that they could safely include Apache licensed code without issue, but there's a difference of opinion. The "class of people" would I think be Drupal users or people developing with Drupal, and they're in no way restricted by the Apache 2 license. As far as the "Drupal project developers" class, they are the one who made the GPL choice. Had they wanted to be able to include code licensed under other licenses, they'd have selected a different license.

I do dislike the latter. I think applying the term "free software" to GPL licensed code is a bit of a misnomer. It's "free" in that you can use it w/o modification, but if you choose to change it then they force a licensing decision on you. So while it's free in the beginning, it takes away the freedom of future developers to license their own work as they choose. This is why it's called a "viral" license. It also quite often means that developers in corporations can't use the project. Some like this aspect, but I'd rather err on the side of helping my fellow programmer than hurting companies. The Apache license is extremely permissive for all uses, but the GPL dislikes that. That's where I see the difference.

The intricacies of dual-licensing are over my head. I'm just generally opposed to a project bending to the whim of a GPL'd project simply because they chose a restrictive license that is now biting them back, and because I like the Apache 2 license. MIT is also great, but offers nothing in the realm of patents, which are unfortunately a big deal these days.

TL;DR: Yes to both, though I disagree with the wording of the former.

@marclaporte

Hi!

@cweagans: thanks for starting this
@juthilo: thanks for recent push to get approvals from v3 contributors

Here are stats from the tracking spreadsheet as of now:

Number of contributors: 355

OK: 262
No: 5
Problem reaching them: 5
Waiting for answer: 83 (these are new contributors in v3 and only recently have been contacted)

Of those who answer, 98.1% agree. For those who disagree (1.9% of contributors), we can rewrite their contributions.

@mdo: There are new committers all the time. This is great but it's making this never ending :-) Would there be a way to ask people to accept as they do their first PR?

Thanks!

@pmclanahan

Just to be clear, while I'm a "no" vote, I don't want to block the will of the majority. Clearly a vast majority is cool with this, so I'm fine with that. I just wanted to make my feelings known on the matter since you asked. But if it's the will of the bootstrap contributor community, then I won't stand in the way.

@marclaporte

Thanks Paul!

@marclaporte

So there was quite a bit of work on this today, by Julian and myself. The current tally stands at:

Number of contributors: 368
OK: 265
No: 3 (A new request was sent out and 2 graciously accepted to change their votes)
Problem: 0 (all problems have been resolved)
Wait 100 (These are more recent contributors in v3 and only have been contacted less than a week ago and we are waiting for the votes to come in.)

@cweagans
cweagans commented Aug 5, 2013

I'd like to point out a very important detail:

This is not a "vote". This is getting permission. It's all or nothing.

@pokonski
Contributor
pokonski commented Aug 5, 2013

Replied 'yes'. Great idea about migrating to MIT license 👍

@barryvdh
Contributor
barryvdh commented Aug 5, 2013

Looks good, but the first mail (6 days ago) just asked for my opinion, so it wasn't really clear that you actually needed my permission. Today's mail was a lot clearer about that, so I filled it. But perhaps it could have been a little bit more clear why this is a big issue..

@marclaporte

Number of contributors: 368
OK: 298
No: 2 (1 more graciously accepted to change): This represents 2 commits
Problem: 0 (all problems have been resolved)
Wait: 68 (We are waiting for the OKs to come in.)

We are now at 99.3% acceptance rate, for those who voted.

@mdo mdo referenced this issue Aug 13, 2013
Closed

Feature planning #9397

10 of 22 tasks complete
@mdo
Member
mdo commented Aug 13, 2013

First, thanks for all the effort folks. Much appreciated.

Second, I know it sucks, but we're not going to be able to make this happen for v3. Given the time frame and all that's left to do to button this up, there's just no way we can make it happen. I've slated it for v3.1 and started to track that via #9397.

Thanks for all the efforts and communication folks. Let's start this up again after v3 drops and get it done. In the mean time, I want to close down this thread. However, I'd ask that @marclaporte, @cweagans, @juthilo though continue their endeavors to get the replies from folks about the switch—no reason to stop that and it'd give us a leg up on it for 3.1.

<3

@mdo mdo closed this Aug 13, 2013
@tardyp
tardyp commented Aug 13, 2013

@mdo where can we subscribe to get update on this taskforce?

@lsmith77

FYI @beberlei is aiming to turn https://github.com/beberlei/license-manager into a hosted service

@marclaporte

Here is the current status:

Number of contributors: 368
OK: 306
No: 3, but only 1 which maybe (or maybe not) has code in v3. We need to evaluate how many commits this represents (can someone help with this?)
Problem: 0 (all bouncing emails have been resolved)
Wait: 59 (We are waiting for the OKs to come in.)

The approval rate is fantastically high and that is great, but we need more time. However, we don't want to slow down the release of 3.0 The sooner 3.0 is out, the sooner people will massively use it and the sooner it will improve.

We will continue to get the approvals and will deal with any commits, with the goal of finishing well before 3.1

In order to avoid this being a never ending endeavor, a pull request for 3.0 should be made with something like: NOTE: For v3.1, we are changing the license from Apache to MIT and are in the process of getting approval of all committers of code in the version 3.x code base (so far 99%+ of committers agree and we will rewrite the contributions of those who don't). By committing to Bootstrap, you are agreeing with the MIT license. Please see details at: #2054

This text should be added next to all the places where the license is indicated. The contributing page, in the actual license file (above the rest), etc. Rhodry volunteered to do this, but maybe someone will beat him to it :-)

Rhodry is sending out emails to the 59 remaining (yesterday or today). In 10 days or so, for anyone that hasn't replied, we could use some help trying to find them via social networks or IRC. We also will need help to identify and potentially rewrite the commits of people who say no, or can't be reached.

On a related note: thank you to Ivan Malopinsky who changed the license of holder.js, which is bundled in Bootstrap. imsky/holder@ab74365

Thanks!

@rhodrykorb
Contributor

I'll be putting that pull request through for the license note tonight. I'll edit this post with it when I have done it.

@rhodrykorb
Contributor

Note about changing from Apache to MIT is done. See #9852

@Yohn
Contributor
Yohn commented Aug 19, 2013

+1 on changing to the MIT license. I know I dont have many contributions to the project, but what I did send in can certainly be switched to the new license.

@rhodrykorb
Contributor

As per suggestion, note about licensing change modeled on current wording #9994

@marclaporte

Thank you Rhodry for your leadership on this.

Here is the current status:

Number of contributors: 369
OK: 319
No: 3, but only 1 which maybe (or maybe not) has code in v3. We need to evaluate how many commits this represents (can someone help with this?)
Problem: 0 (all bouncing emails have been resolved)
Wait: 47 (We are waiting for the OKs to come in.)

@cweagans

To see how many commits somebody has made, you can look on:

https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/commits?author=github_username

@rhodrykorb
Contributor

@cweagans I am going though that now and checking if the commits still exist in BS3
Need someone who can tell me a quick way to check if the listed commits are still part of BS3

@zdroid
zdroid commented Aug 24, 2013

I'm also contributor (2 merged pull requests), don't need to check for me.

2013/8/24 Rhodry Korb notifications@github.com

@cweagans https://github.com/cweagans I am going though that now and
checking if the commits still exist in BS3


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/2054#issuecomment-23200668
.

Zlatan Vasović - ZDroid

@rhodrykorb
Contributor

@ZDroid Have emailed you a formal request for your consent to license under MIT.

@zdroid
zdroid commented Aug 24, 2013

kk.

2013/8/24 Rhodry Korb notifications@github.com

@ZDroid https://github.com/ZDroid Have emailed you a formal request for
your consent to license under MIT.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/2054#issuecomment-23204440
.

Zlatan Vasović - ZDroid

@gdi2290
Contributor
gdi2290 commented Aug 24, 2013
@zerkms
Contributor
zerkms commented Sep 25, 2013

How many times it needs to be confirmed? I'm already twice in that list

@rhodrykorb
Contributor

@zerkms Unfortunately some people (<5) accidentally got emailed a second time.

@zerkms
Contributor
zerkms commented Sep 30, 2013

@rhodrykorb got 2 more emails today :-S

@rhodrykorb
Contributor

@zerkms I was just emailing you about that.
You shouldn't get it again and we definitely have your YES.

Some people may have just gotten two emails from almost the same time - the server had a bit of a stall and did its own thing.

@gstein
gstein commented Sep 30, 2013

What a useless expenditure of effort and time :-(

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Rhodry Korb notifications@github.comwrote:

@zerkms https://github.com/zerkms I was just emailing you about that.
You shouldn't get it again and we definitely have your YES.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/2054#issuecomment-25352289
.

@zerkms
Contributor
zerkms commented Sep 30, 2013

@gstein it's a coursera Email 101 course :-)

@tardyp
tardyp commented Sep 30, 2013

@zerkms, @gstein, even if there may be 2 or 3 emails send twice, let's continue to support @rhodrykorb for its gracious and painful work on this topic.
Please keep up, and let's finish this asap. A lot of GPL projects will thank you for your work!

@gstein
gstein commented Sep 30, 2013

@zerkms @tardyp I wasn't referring to the emails. The entire notion of switching the license is predicated on a statement that Eben placed on the FSF website a decade ago. And everybody is falling for it, and creating such a sorrowful waste. It really saddens me.

@rhodrykorb
Contributor

@tardyp Thanks for your support.

I have a bit of a process going now, which took some ironing out, but hopefully it is all smooth sailing now. Using some scripts to help detect duplicates so should solve that issue and the issue of repeat emails, unless of course you used a different email for some commits in which case you will unfortunately get an additional email.

@pokonski
Contributor

What gibberish are you talking about?

On 30 September 2013 14:00, Greg Stein notifications@github.com wrote:

@zerkms https://github.com/zerkms @tardyp https://github.com/tardyp I
wasn't referring to the emails. The entire notion of switching the license
is predicated on a statement that Eben placed on the FSF website a decade
ago. And everybody is falling for it, and creating such a sorrowful waste.
It really saddens me.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/2054#issuecomment-25354429
.

@codler
Contributor
codler commented Sep 30, 2013

I got 5 emails today, stop spamming!

@rhodrykorb
Contributor

@codler As I noted above, the server got a bit stuck and did its own thing. This has been fixed, my apologies again.

@gstein
gstein commented Sep 30, 2013

I've posted about this earlier. Read my other comments. The ALv2 is
compatible with the GPLv2. Why do you believe otherwise? Because the FSF
told you so?

@rhodrykorb
Contributor

For those interested, stats so far:

60 contributors need to reply (100+ commits)
5 contributors have some form of issue (generally invalid email)
1 definite no will need rewriting
84.8% of contributors to BS have agreed to MIT

(and a shout out to @buob who changed the stats the second I posted them, making me have to go and edit them)

@lsmith77

I would still highly recommend to use https://github.com/beberlei/license-manager

Its been used successfully here for example. It makes it easy to track the progress, prevent spamming and allows to tag commits as trivial:
http://phpcr-license.davidbu.ch/licenses/projects

@rhodrykorb
Contributor

@lsmith77 If we were to consider it we would need some simple way to migrate all the data we have now.

@lsmith77

That should not be too hard.
There is a UI that you could use if you would be willing to do it manually.
Alternatively if you have the current data in some SQL DB (or import it), you could write a query to do it.

@rhodrykorb
Contributor

@lsmith77 It is all currently in Google Spreadsheets.
Also noting, it is not just up to me either.

@lsmith77

should not be too hard to get that into an SQL DB. export csv -> sql

@UTCWebDev
Contributor

@gstein GNU.org states, re ALv2 "Please note that this license is not compatible with GPL version 2, because it has some requirements that are not in that GPL version. These include certain patent termination and indemnification provisions. The patent termination provision is a good thing, which is why we recommend the Apache 2.0 license for substantial programs over other lax permissive licenses."

Compatibility issues vs. legality issues; seems WordPress is OK with themes, plugins, etc. incorporating Bootstrap.

Not sure about WP core.

@gstein
gstein commented Sep 30, 2013

@UTCWebDev as I said: you're just taking the FSF's word for it. That statement was placed there by Eben a decade ago, and the ASF maintains he is incorrect. We just got tired of arguing with him (though in hindsight, we should have persisted to avoid situations like this).

So you have no real idea what this purported "incompatibility" is, other than what the FSF tells you.

And as a result, people are blowing a lot of time and effort attempting to relicense, based on an arguable statement on a website from a decade ago. I have yet to see anybody provide a specific reason why Bootstrap could not be included in Drupal (or other packages) under its existing ALv2 license.

@zdroid
zdroid commented Sep 30, 2013

Greg, stop your spam and blame. Please.

APL v2 is very permissive license and it violates some core GPL v2 / v3
terms.

Bootstrap users (including me) want MIT license. It's a fact.

2013/9/30 Greg Stein notifications@github.com

@UTCWebDev https://github.com/UTCWebDev as I said: you're just taking
the FSF's word for it. That statement was placed there by Eben a decade
ago, and the ASF maintains he is incorrect. We just got tired of arguing
with him (though in hindsight, we should have persisted to avoid situations
like this).

So you have no real idea what this purported "incompatibility" is, other
than what the FSF tells you.

And as a result, people are blowing a lot of time and effort attempting to
relicense, based on an arguable statement on a website from a decade ago. I
have yet to see anybody provide a specific reason why Bootstrap could not
be included in Drupal (or other packages) under its existing ALv2 license.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/2054#issuecomment-25395400
.

Zlatan Vasović - ZDroid

@gstein
gstein commented Sep 30, 2013

It doesn't violate either GPL. But meh ... it's your choice about your
time/effort.

@UTCWebDev
Contributor

Full disclosure: I voted for dual license.

However, the Drupal distribution issue is a red herring:
"Check to see if your library is already included in the list of existing whitelist entries.
[...]
If not, verify that the license of the library is one of the following: GPL v2 and later, LGPL v2 and later, (any of these GPL V2 and later-compatible licenses)."

Existing distribution:
https://drupal.org/project/flight
Existing module:
https://drupal.org/project/views_bootstrap
Existing theme:
https://drupal.org/project/bootstrap

Therefore, should be "legal" for Drupal distribution.

Also plenty of precedent in Joomla and WordPress. Templates, themes, components galore...

@stuartpb
Contributor

For the subject of projects looking to include Bootstrap that need a less-ambiguously-Apache-compatible 2.0: has anybody considered writing a "GPL v2.1" that doesn't include the anti-Tivoization clause (so developers can use the code in closed hardware) but does include patent termination / indemnification clauses (which it sounds like could be "backported" from v3)?

@cweagans

http://xkcd.com/927/ comes to mind.

@stuartpb
Contributor

A new license isn't like a new one-size-fits-all standard intending to cover "everyone's use cases", though. Licenses don't work that way- you need different licensing terms to cover different restrictions.

(We have different restrictions because different people need to make different demands- for instance, if you want to release code and receive others' contributions back, using the MIT license wouldn't be appropriate in a culture where most developers keep substantial modifications proprietary, like point-of-sale systems. Meanwhile, on the Web, code usually receives a few tweaks and is uploaded to the public in source form, so allowing a few outliers to keep their changes proprietary won't hurt.)

A proposed "GPL v2.1" set of terms would cover a small portion of use cases that currently exists (big example- Linus Torvalds objects to the anti-Tivoization clause in GPLv3 but doesn't like patents), but doesn't have an appropriate pre-made document to express them (which is why Linux is still on the GPLv2, despite its lack of protection against patent abuse).

@mdo
Member
mdo commented Oct 10, 2013

If you want to have that discussion, go for it, just don't do it here please :D.

@stuartpb
Contributor

@mdo: Suggestion as to where such a discussion could be had?

@mdo
Member
mdo commented Oct 10, 2013

@stuartpb Dunno—but talking about new licenses independent of this framework shouldn't happen here. The consensus has been to move to MIT, and that's well under way. Just seems like the two discussions are not related, especially to the ~60 people watching this thread :).

@stuartpb
Contributor

Searching around it looks like there isn't an existing forum for this sort of discussion, so I've made a Google Group: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/nonlawyers

And, to answer my initial question: at the bottom of the page for the GPLv3, it says "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." Which, I take it, means derivative works are illegal (in other words, the GPL itself is published under a non-free license).

@gstein
gstein commented Oct 12, 2013

Correct: derivative works of the GPL license are not allowed. The authors have not granted that right to you/others. I would state that is a Good Thing. There are already too many FLOSS licenses, and that creates immense problems. Attempting to create a new/derivative license is not very helpful: users and lawyers have to examine it and its combinatorics with other licenses. IMO, choose GPLv3 or ALv2. Don't try and create something new.

For licensing discussions, in terms of applications, combinations, interpretations, etc ... the legal-discuss@apache.org mailing list has lots of eyeballs and lots of history (almost nine years old). And yes, it even includes some lawyers who contribute to the discussion, but (obviously) not to provide official advice. See http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/ for archives. It isn't all Apache licensing, but certainly tends towards ALv2-related issues and its relationship with other licenses.

@mirabilos

Is git master already under MIT, or will there be a commit effectively switching the licence only in the future?

I’m asking because I need to use this with FusionForge which is a huge legacy codebase which is mostly GPLv2+ but with some GPLv2-only parts, thus Apachev2/GPLv3 will not work for it.

Thanks!

@juthilo
Member
juthilo commented Nov 19, 2013

@mirabilos All new contributions since the release of v3.0.1 are dual-licensed under both the APLv2 and MIT licenses and we are planning to make the full switch to MIT with v3.1 (no release date on that yet).

@kreynen kreynen referenced this issue in FortAwesome/Font-Awesome Nov 19, 2013
Closed

SIL Open Font License and GPL #1124

@mdo
Member
mdo commented Dec 19, 2013

Shazam!

We're stoked to announce that the MIT relicensing has been completed. The remaining Apache-only commits were reverted by #11927 and replaced by rewritten, MIT-licensed commits in #11928. After several commits to replace all references to the Apache License with the MIT license, fe7c7cc's code is unambiguously MIT-licensed.

Look for this to all land officially in the public hands with v3.1.

(Please note that, as always, the docs continue to remain under the CC-BY-3.0 Unported License.)

❤️ :shipit:

@nterray
nterray commented Dec 19, 2013

Yeah ! Congrats ! ❤️

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Mark Otto notifications@github.com wrote:

Shazam!

We're stoked to announce that the MIT relicensing has been completed. The
remaining Apache-only commits were reverted by #11927https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/pull/11927and replaced by rewritten, MIT-licensed commits in
#11928 #11928. After several
commits to replace all references to the Apache License with the MIT
license, fe7c7cchttps://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/commit/fe7c7ccf29bfb47bf348190837be35f1857a11fe's
code is unambiguously MIT-licensed.

Look for this to all land officially in the public hands with v3.1.

(Please note that, as always, the docs continues to remain under the
CC-BY-3.0 Unported License.)

[image: ❤️][image: ][image: :shipit:]


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/2054#issuecomment-30894685
.

@ThomasWaldmann

Thanks a lot to everybody who worked on the relicensing!

Quite a lot of GPL projects (including MoinMoin Wiki 2) will be able to use bootstrap now without worries.

@zdroid
zdroid commented Dec 19, 2013

Good job.

2013/12/19 ThomasWaldmann notifications@github.com

Thanks a lot to everybody who worked on the relicensing!

Quite a lot of GPL projects (including MoinMoin Wiki 2) will be able to
use bootstrap now without worries.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/issues/2054#issuecomment-30921082
.

Zlatan Vasović - ZDroid

@caniszczyk caniszczyk was unassigned by cweagans May 22, 2014
@cvrebert cvrebert locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 9, 2014
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.