search

aewallin / openvoronoi

2D voronoi diagram for point and line-segment sites using incremental topology-oriented algorithm. C++ with python bindings. Licensed under LGPL2.1.
http://www.anderswallin.net/cam/
GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1
198 stars 68 forks source link

Consider changing to more permissive license #35

Closed sliptonic closed 6 years ago

sliptonic commented 6 years ago

The GPL3 license with strong copyleft provisions is too restrictive to allow linking and packaging with applications like FreeCAD that are LGPL.

If openvoronoi was re-licensed LGPL2.1, inclusion in other applications would be easier and interest in using the library would increase.

I'm willing to help with any re-licensing effort and FreeCAD community will help with debian packaging if re-licensed so we can use it.

aewallin commented 6 years ago

To me a change to LGPL2.1 is OK.

This page lists 5 more (minor) contributors to the codebase - maybe we could get an "ok" from them in this thread just to be on the safe side before a license change. https://github.com/aewallin/openvoronoi/graphs/contributors

in addition there are probably many forks with enhancements that haven't been merged back to my repo - but I haven't heard of any major developments...

mmassing commented 6 years ago

I think relicensing to a more permissive license is a great idea. You've got my ok to re-license my OpenVoronoi contributions to LGPL. I wouldn't mind something even more permissive, e.g. MPL or wxWidgets (wxWidgets library license, https://www.wxwidgets.org/about/licence/), which in essence is LGPL + permission for static linking. But that's Anders call of course :-)

Rogach commented 6 years ago

OK

nraynaud commented 6 years ago

I'm perfectly ok with re-licensing my code the way you want.

gavanderhoorn commented 6 years ago

I'm ok with re-licensing to lgpl or a more permissive license.

VictorLamoine commented 6 years ago

I'm ok with re-licensing to lgpl or a more permissive license.

Blokkendoos commented 6 years ago

I'm ok with LGPL or a more permissive license. @jtpederson Are you ok too?

aewallin commented 6 years ago

Thanks for quick replies everyone!

What would be the preferred workflow for this? I could imagine:

sliptonic commented 6 years ago

That sounds good to me. The license header change is probably a solved problem. Maybe here: https://github.com/johann-petrak/licenseheaders

aewallin commented 6 years ago

The proposed change to LGPL 2.1 is now in a branch called "LGPL". I will try to go through most non-trivial c++/python files and check the headers in the next few days. If there are no objections I will then merge LGPL into master.

aewallin commented 6 years ago

I merged the LGPL branch into master. (pull request #40 ) Thanks for the help with changing the license. closing this issue now.

kkremitzki commented 6 years ago

@aewallin Can you tag a release with a bumped version number, preferably one that is greater than current existing tags? (i.e. since there's a tag that starts with version "2018...", tagging 18.07 or 18.08 would not be ideal since version comparison tools would think version 18.x < version 2018.x)

aewallin commented 6 years ago

2018.08 now tagged, from master.