Choose an Open Source License

[jdalt]

I dropped the ball on this one. In my haste to get a useful tool out the door, I never considered the exact software license to use for this project. I have a fairly limited understanding of Open Source Licenses that can be summarized as the Copyleft GNU GPL variants (you have to contribute your changes back) vs the permissive MIT/BSD (do whatever you want) variants.

My instinct is that this project should use a Copyleft GNU GPL variant. The MIT/BSD variants seem more popular for libraries, but this is an end user application. I think any changes made to this code should be given back to the community.

There's probably more nuance to this, but it seems like the GNU GPLv3 is a fairly obvious choice. https://choosealicense.com/licenses/gpl-3.0/

[experimatt]

@kmarekspartz's input on licenses:

"Note that a GPL license may exclude some contributors due to their employment."

[jasonthibeault]

If any contributors give us code while employed for the federal government that has been written on their work time, then it is public domain and not copyrightable -- which invalidates the GPL. So, unfortunately, that's kind of true.

But also, really, copyleft and fully open source is the most intuitive license for people to be using, and if anyone sneaks in any copyrighted code, or does work on work-hours time, they may need to clear things with their employers that this IS open source.

I don't know if this is helpful at all but my gut says to say it's GPL3 to start with, and let contributors sort out whether they can actually contribute under that license.

[omawhite]

Late on this, but i would agree with GPL3 and letting contributors decide how that affects their contributions. Maybe if we feel the need to call out specifics for government employees or anyone else put something in the readme under contribution guidelines.

[mc-funk]

Wanted to make sure this got into the thread -- There was a really similar thread on twitter that surfaced this: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production_License Peer production license "The peer production license is an example of the Copyfair type of license, in which only other commoners, cooperatives and nonprofits can share and re-use the material, but not commercial entities intent on making profit through the commons without explicit reciprocity."

[jdalt]

Slack conversation: https://opentwincities.slack.com/archives/C014EU7UZJA/p1591878714208600 Twitter thread: https://twitter.com/erikras/status/1271049010535596033

[jdalt]

CFA has now got a wiki on this: https://discourse.codeforamerica.org/t/wiki-choosing-software-licenses-for-your-brigade-project/822

[lbarhaugh]

• [ ] Read through 4 candidate licenses - MIT, GPL v3, Peer Production, Hippocratic
• [ ] figure out what legal entity to assign the license to
• [ ] look into how we can verify our license compliance on Github (Jacob)

[jdalt]

react-leaflet switching to hippocratic license in v3 some discussion: against: https://github.com/PaulLeCam/react-leaflet/issues/698#issuecomment-695353667 response: https://github.com/PaulLeCam/react-leaflet/issues/698#issuecomment-696030668

[jdalt]

@amaxama I'd really like to get an Open Source license on this so that Netlify will cover the hosting (it's $57/mo right now).

Does anybody have any opinions on the license? Right now I feel like flipping a coin between MIT and GPL.

[amaxama]

@amaxama I'd really like to get an Open Source license on this so that Netlify will cover the hosting (it's $57/mo right now).

Does anybody have any opinions on the license? Right now I feel like flipping a coin between MIT and GPL.

Oof yeah that is steep. Honestly I think either of those would be fine but I'm leaning maybe a little more towards GPL but not a huge preference. I guess if ones would be easier that could also influence the decision.

[adyates]

Bystander two cents 👀:

From my experience, MIT is easier than GPL if no other reason than you don't need to work around the license if there's something you'd want to use later. The aggressiveness of GPL actually makes it a bit radioactive, which might not be what you want if you want code to help people.

Applications aren't monoliths, and there are definitely times where, for a substantial enough project with an interesting circumstance, you'll find something you'd like to take and improve upon without GPLing whatever you work on.

Like, for example, some of the shim stuff related to Airtable (assuming it's still there).

[amaxama]

@adyates Okay! That's a good point! I'm fine with MIT too then @jdalt !

[jdalt]

From my experience, MIT is easier than GPL if no other reason than you don't need to work around the license if there's something you'd want to use later. @adyates Okay! That's a good point! I'm fine with MIT too then @jdalt !

@adyates, @amaxama I've received this advice multiple times and it sounds like it's about time to listen. PR coming soon.

In other news received this after creating support ticket with Netlify:

We don't advertise it but we do have a public good plan that is essentially the same as the open source plan. I think that fits your model better than open source so I've enabled a public good plan for the Twin-Cities_Mutual-Aid team. We still ask you to put a link to our service on your homepage. I'm copy/pasting the details here. I know it says required. Technically that's true but really, we're just asking. :)

"Further, we require a link to our service on your project's main web page for your website's visitors to see (so, not just in your repository documentation or on a sponsors page). You have two options: we have premade badges for your convenience, or you may create your own link, which should read “This site is powered by Netlify”. Either should link back to our home page, https://www.netlify.com/."

In short I want to follow up with 2 changes: 1) add MIT license 2) add netlify badge and shoutout for sponsorship

Sound good?

[jdalt]

@amaxama do you have access to the netlify site? I need to be invited back (even though I'm still the billing admin).