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

Cleanup license type & license holder #104

Closed
d3m3vilurr opened this issue Nov 29, 2016 · 33 comments
Closed

Cleanup license type & license holder #104

d3m3vilurr opened this issue Nov 29, 2016 · 33 comments
Labels

Comments

@d3m3vilurr
Copy link
Contributor

Currently project use 3 types licenses

  1. MPL 2.0; it's legacy from PSP2SDK, but all files
  2. MIT; one file kernel/rng.h
  3. Not exists; one file photoexport.h

so,

  1. @endrift should decide license type of photoexport.h, only she can.
  2. @enoposix said new headers can use MIT.
    if we want to change all header to MIT, we need confirmation from @173210 .
  3. maybe we need to append Copyright (C) 2016 vitasdk or Copyright (C) 2015-2016 vitasdk to all headers(but maybe late, already end of year..)
@devnoname120
Copy link
Member

While we are at it, can we shorten all those license preambles to only point to a LICENSE.MD file? They uselessly clutter all the header files.

@jdek
Copy link
Contributor

jdek commented Nov 29, 2016

@d3m3vilurr I wonder if we could just cheat and do Copyright (C) 2015-2017 vitasdk

@d3m3vilurr
Copy link
Contributor Author

@devnoname120 some license require shorten describe in header section of all files. and lisence file should contain license full text. in this case MPL also need. (because MPL 2.0 have long license text ;) )

MIT license not need this rule, they are already shorten license text and another project also only use license file.

but we still cannot use license file until change base license :/

@enoposix haha. yes. :)

@endrift
Copy link
Contributor

endrift commented Nov 29, 2016

That's odd, I thought I attached a license to that file. Let me attach a license in a PR.

@xyzz
Copy link
Contributor

xyzz commented Nov 29, 2016


We're trying to relicense vitasdk headers under the MIT license, full text below:

 * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
 * of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
 * in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
 * to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
 * copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
 * furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
 * 
 * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
 * all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
 * 
 * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
 * IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
 * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
 * AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
 * LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
 * OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
 * THE SOFTWARE.

Please, post in this issue one of the following:

  • I agree that my past contributions to vitasdk or psp2sdk are relicensed to the MIT license
  • I disagree that my contributions are relicensed to MIT

Thank you.

@devnoname120
Copy link
Member

I agree that my past contributions to vitasdk or psp2sdk are relicensed to the MIT license.

@xyzz
Copy link
Contributor

xyzz commented Nov 29, 2016

I agree that my past contributions to vitasdk or psp2sdk are relicensed to the MIT license

@endrift
Copy link
Contributor

endrift commented Nov 29, 2016

I agree that my past contributions to vitasdk or psp2sdk are relicensed to the MIT license. (As I mentioned on IRC.)

@d3m3vilurr
Copy link
Contributor Author

I agree that my past contributions to vitasdk or psp2sdk are relicensed to the MIT license

1 similar comment
@frangarcj
Copy link
Contributor

I agree that my past contributions to vitasdk or psp2sdk are relicensed to the MIT license

@wootguy
Copy link
Contributor

wootguy commented Nov 29, 2016

I agree that my past contributions to vitasdk or psp2sdk are relicensed to the MIT license.

lol all I did was comment on a function.

@jdek
Copy link
Contributor

jdek commented Nov 29, 2016

I agree that my past contributions to vitasdk or psp2sdk are relicensed to the MIT license

4 similar comments
@himanshugoel2797
Copy link
Contributor

I agree that my past contributions to vitasdk or psp2sdk are relicensed to the MIT license

@MrNetrix
Copy link
Contributor

I agree that my past contributions to vitasdk or psp2sdk are relicensed to the MIT license

@xerpi
Copy link
Contributor

xerpi commented Nov 29, 2016

I agree that my past contributions to vitasdk or psp2sdk are relicensed to the MIT license

@ralekdev
Copy link
Contributor

I agree that my past contributions to vitasdk or psp2sdk are relicensed to the MIT license

@geekbozu
Copy link
Contributor

I agree that my past contributions to vitasdk or psp2sdk are relicensed to the MIT license

Frankly I forgot that it wasn't MIT to begin with. Cheers to my favorite license :D

@yifanlu
Copy link
Contributor

yifanlu commented Nov 29, 2016

I agree that my past contributions to vitasdk or psp2sdk are relicensed to the MIT license

@173210
Copy link
Contributor

173210 commented Nov 29, 2016

I would like to keep it under MPL, but I'll follow others' decisions.

@TheOfficialFloW
Copy link
Member

I agree that my past contributions to vitasdk or psp2sdk are relicensed to the MIT license

1 similar comment
@FirebirdTA01
Copy link
Contributor

I agree that my past contributions to vitasdk or psp2sdk are relicensed to the MIT license

@yne
Copy link
Contributor

yne commented Nov 29, 2016

I agree that my past contributions to vitasdk or psp2sdk are relicensed to the MIT license

because I can't wait to get ride of all those headers

@jdek
Copy link
Contributor

jdek commented Nov 30, 2016

@173210 could you please clarify, and state either of the options? We'd just like to be 100% sure.

@codestation
Copy link
Contributor

I agree that my past contributions to vitasdk or psp2sdk are relicensed to the MIT license

@173210
Copy link
Contributor

173210 commented Nov 30, 2016

@enoposix Now I agree that my past contributions to vitasdk or psp2sdk are relicensed to the MIT license. 👍

@yifanlu
Copy link
Contributor

yifanlu commented Nov 30, 2016

@Smoke5 responded to me

I don't have access to the SMOKE5 account (not compromised, just dunno password) I agree to the relicensing

@DaveeFTW
Copy link
Contributor

I agree that my past contributions to vitasdk or psp2sdk are relicensed to the MIT license

@Rinnegatamante
Copy link
Member

I agree that my past contributions to vitasdk or psp2sdk are relicensed to the MIT license

@ribbid987
Copy link
Contributor

ribbid987 commented Nov 30, 2016 via email

@HybridEidolon
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to relicensing to MIT.

@devnoname120
Copy link
Member

devnoname120 commented Jan 8, 2017

The only approval missing is @D5C85B13876B8's.

Here are their contributions:

Knowing that the change in the first commit is just a value swap, and the second one is a function prototype that is really similar to the ones above, do they qualify for copyright?

@yifanlu
Copy link
Contributor

yifanlu commented Jan 8, 2017

If that's the only blocker, then I say proceed.

@D5C85B13876B8
Copy link
Contributor

I agree that my past contributions to vitasdk or psp2sdk are relicensed to the MIT license

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests