Licensing about semver-tool HOT 27 CLOSED

This might be hard and take a while, but let's see...

• @qyanu
• @particleflux
• @eviweb
• @bradfordboyle
• @kenjones-cisco
• @issaharw
• @alyssais
• @ah-clem
• @troian
• @ranger6
• @mrzasa
• @llonchj
• @haguenau
• @azuenko

What you all think? :)

from semver-tool.

@WoLfulus @fsaintjacques
My interpretation of european law (where i am seated) is, that my changes/commit do not meat the required threshold to constitute a protected work.
However, in the event that an authoritative entity has a different opinion, i already state in advance and irrevocably: i don't object to any use or any relicensing, including re-licensing under MIT.

from semver-tool.

MIT is fine for a tool like this one.

from semver-tool.

I'd be fine with the MIT license.
The current license (GPL) as it would apply to most uses of this tool is not really that burdensome in terms of capturing other IP (copyleft). Running a GPL app/script in the context of other software does not "taint" that software. Lawyers sometimes get touchy about re-distributing GPL software along with other code (on the same disk, ...).
So, just to keep everyone calm, a more permissive license (e.g. MIT) seems fine.

from semver-tool.

So it seems we can re-license .

from semver-tool.

@fsaintjacques would you mind commenting on this, please? :)

from semver-tool.

Considering a lot of people contributed patch to this project, I don't think this is feasible. If you want to track down every contributor and get their approval, I'll gladly change it to something more permissive.

from semver-tool.

I wonder how I'd be able to contact them. Maybe I should @ / ping each one of them in this issue to get their approval and let them comment on this?

from semver-tool.

Also, before trying to contact the contributors, would you mind telling which license you'll be willing to change to? So that contributors know which one it will become? Is MIT fine for you?

Thanks!

from semver-tool.

Fine by me

from semver-tool.

MIT fine with me.

from semver-tool.

from semver-tool.

I'll take a look at that @alyssais ! Thanks for the info :)

from semver-tool.

I don't even remember contributing, so that must have been something trivial, but, anyhoo, feel free to relicense to MIT.

from semver-tool.

no objections for moving to MIT

from semver-tool.

No objections. MIT is a good one!

from semver-tool.

No objection to re-licensing under MIT.

from semver-tool.

ping @qyanu @eviweb @mrzasa @llonchj

from semver-tool.

@fsaintjacques are we there yet?

from semver-tool.

@eviweb @mrzasa @llonchj

from semver-tool.

Hi, no objection for me.

from semver-tool.

Of the remaining people to approve re-licensing, there's only one commit with changes to the actual code -> 1aabc20
All others are documentation changes. Can we re-license now or is commit by @llonchj considered copyrightable (I wouldn't think so)?

Actually, there have been 4 new contributes since this was opened...

• @troian -> af29bcc
• @Wonno -> e0a836c
• @tlahn -> 8862212
• @josephschmitt -> 8305ef2

Can we get your approvals too?

from semver-tool.

An interesting point: the code changed in the below mentioned commit no longer exists; not just the changes, but the entire
function is gone; the referenced objects are gone; the design has changed; the logic has changed. This was seven years ago,
and so, long before I even became aware of the project. Perhaps this commit provoked other changes and so is really part
of the licensed code base is some way? Perhaps it was a dead end “fork in the road”? I wouldn’t know.

But it does seem a shame that a license change that could help others benefit from this code is held up for three lines of 7 year old dead and gone code.

Here is a thought experiment:

What if the project were to fork just prior to the @llonchj commit and the new project changed the license. Then the other contributors agreed that
a pull request with changes (based on their contributions) to bring the project up to date was then accepted. I mean, it would be sort of
strange if a commit by one person could somehow poison all subsequent work by others.

Ha! Only kidding! Best path forward is more reach-out to @llonchj

from semver-tool.

FYI. To keep conversations public, here is a copy of the note I sent to @llonchj (since he may not be receiving notifications from this project):

Hello,

In 2014, your contribution to the semver-tool was merged into the project: #2

Today, there is a proposal to change this project’s license from "GNU Version 3” to “MIT”. The motivation is that it makes sense for many to bundle this modest tool with other software without risking “poisoning” the other software. The proposal has been opened as an issue on this project: #32.

The project maintainer and copyright holder, François Saint-Jacques, believes that to change the license, we need to get the agreement of all the contributors. You are the only remaining contributor (that is no longer active) that has not expressed an opinion. Everyone else agrees that changing the license is a good thing.

Please take a look at the issue and leave a comment .. hopefully expressing your agreement.

thanks for your time,
— robert
https://github.com/ranger6

P.S. In case you are wondering, I tracked down your email address from the git commit log of your contribution.

from semver-tool.

sorry for the late reply.
no objection to the license change

from semver-tool.

@fsaintjacques While you mention that "we can re-license", I think you should do the honors! While you're "on-site", maybe you can accept my pull request #56 (no version number change). Thanks!

from semver-tool.

When changing the license, the badge in the README.md file needs to be fixed: it needs to point to the LICENSE file on the master branch. It is currently broken, pointing to the LICENSE file on the "develop" branch.

from semver-tool.