Open tony opened 1 year ago
Hi @tony :) to be honest, I probably just chose the same license I used for everything.
I didnt pick this specific license for any particular reason.
I'm happy to take a suggestion for what the license should be if there are good reasons behind it.
Which one of the licenses would you suggest out of the ones you mentioned?
:) Hi @MichaelAquilina
MIT - virtualenv's license, would be most flexible. It is compatible downstream with most major licenses
How does that sound?
sounds reasonable to me 👍🏼 would you like to open a PR with that change so we can take it from there :)?
@MichaelAquilina
There's 17 committers that committed while the repo was GPLv3.
Since there's no CLA / contributor license agreement covering earlier commits (I'm assuming you're fine with your own commits going from GPL -> MIT, correct me if I'm wrong!), there'd need to be a move.
The most I could offer is:
Make a pull request w/ a forward-looking note, so ongoing commits are MIT licensed
Create a TODO list and notify the contributors asking permission for them to license GPL -> MIT
Example: https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest-mock/issues/45#issuecomment-221442457
Hi, thank you for the project!
I don't quite know how GPL works in this scenario of this project.
zsh(1) proper uses GPL, but it's built into a binary.
In this situation (in the "dot-config" ecosystem), it's downstream, I generally see more flexible terms (ISC, MIT, BSD, etc). It's more hospitable to the pace in which scripts moved and how they are shared. I like to keep my .dot-configs in a copy-paste friendly setup so users can take segments they want.
What do you think? What does GPL mean to you in terms of zsh-autoswitch-virtualenv?