search

UBC-MDS / ImgHelpR

ImgHelpR is a simple image processing R package.
https://ubc-mds.github.io/ImgHelpR
Other
0 stars 1 forks source link

License discussion #32

Open jasmineortega opened 2 years ago

jasmineortega commented 2 years ago

Hi everyone -- here is the issue where we should discuss the licensing choice for our packages (ImgHelp/ImgHelpR) as discussed in Milestone 4. For both packages, we previously chose to use the MIT license. How does everyone feel about the license as it currently is? For more in depth details about our options, please refer to lecture 8

As is, the MIT license seems pretty flexible in terms of derivative work/collaboration, which is okay with me. I believe our intention of creating a beginner-friendly image package goes hand in hand with a more lax/open source type of license that encourages others to build upon our work!

Below, I've copied and pasted the MIT license for easy reference:

Copyright (c) 2022 Sufang Tan, Jasmine Ortega, Ho Kwan Lio, Maeve Shi

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.

stevenlio88 commented 2 years ago

For the most part, I agree with the license choice, we build this package for learning purposes and do not intend this to replace any existing package and we are not really thinking about monetizing this. We do open for anyone to contribute to this package and make constructive improvements to it hence anyone using this package at their own risk and we are open for suggestions.

MaeveShi commented 2 years ago

MIT license meets our need, it's perfect for our package --- we welcome anyone to use, modify and do any kind of contributions to the package.

jasmineortega commented 2 years ago

Maeve and Steven, you make great points. I definitely concur that the future of this package would work best under a flexible license that allows other to collaborate or expand on the existing framework we've made. I especially like that the MIT license provides a liability protection for us (original authors of the package) by explicitly stating that it does not provide a warranty!

It sounds like are all in agreement about the MIT license. We will go ahead and keep the license as is then!