License vim-template under a free software license?

ArniDagur commented 6 years ago

Athough this project is open source, it technically is not free software as defined by the FSF as it has not been licensed under such a license. This is important as there are many people who refuse to use any non-free software.

What is this project's licensing stance? Have you simply not gotten around to adding a license, or do you intend to reserve all rights to the software? Clarification would be appreciated.

aperezdc commented 6 years ago

At least the main code of the plugin is clearly MIT-licensed as per the file header, but I do agree with @ArniDagur that it would be better to have a clearer licensing, with a COPYING text file added to the root of the repository.

To make things as transparent and clear as possible, I have assembled the following list of the rest of the files, and the people who contributed to them. If you are in the list, please reply to this issue explicitly telling whether you agree on licensing those under the terms of the MIT license:

[ ] README.rst
- [ ] @Lyude
- [x] @muff1nman
- [x] @FacundoAcevedo
- [x] @infmagic2047
- [ ] @Dewdrops
- [x] @chenjianlong
- [ ] @bradrice
[ ] syntax/vim-template.vim
- [ ] @Lyude
- [x] @bstin
[ ] doc/template.txt
- [x] @muff1nman
- [x] @ArniDagur
- [x] @toransahu
- [x] @pgraham

aperezdc commented 6 years ago

For the example template files under the templates/ subdirectory, I think it makes sense to add an exception to the license, ~~saying that any derived works do not need to follow the MIT license~~ and it would be a good option to use the Unlicense to explicitly waive copyright. The reason for this is that the text that they generate when the templates are expanded may end up being part of any project, ~~with any~~ which itself may have a different license; ~~if we don't add the exception then technically would force projects using templates to have a license that is MIT-compatible... and I think that would be quite bad.~~

The following people have contributed to the files under templates/; please comment here in the next days if you agree with the proposed ~~license exception~~ change to use the Unlicense for them:

[x] @ogarcia
[x] @muff1nman
[x] @muse
[x] @timhughes
[x] @rharriso
[ ] @disoul
[x] @olshevskiy87
[x] @dimkarakostas
[x] @libaoxi
[ ] Jon Bartlet (note: I'll try to send him an e-mail).

Note: edited on July 4th, 2018 to propose using the Unlicense instead of adding a license exception. Removed text left as ~~strike-through~~ for reference.

FacundoAcevedo commented 6 years ago

I do prefer GPLv3, but since it has been released as MIT, I will not block the consensus, so:

I agree on licensing my contribution under the terms of the MIT license.

bstin commented 6 years ago

I agree. the MIT license is fine with me.

ArniDagur commented 6 years ago

For the example template files under the templates/ subdirectory, I think it makes sense to add an exception to the license, saying that any derived works do not need to follow the MIT license. The reason for this is that the text that they generate when the templates are expanded may end up being part of any project, with any license; if we don't add the exception then technically would force projects using templates to have a license that is MIT-compatible... and I think that would be quite bad.

I have three thoughts on this:

There is this concept in copyright law known as the threshold of originality. Basically, since the templates are all made up of boilerplate code and simple, unoriginal (as in not being an original work) sentances, they do not reach the 'threshold of originality', and are thus not protected by copyright; they are in the public domain.
Even in a scenario where the templates held copyright protection, licensing them under a permissive license such as MIT would be preferable to all rights being reserved.
Explicitly waiving all copyright by—for example—using the Unlicense, would be even better.

On another note:

I agree on licensing my contributions to this project under the terms of the MIT license.

olshevskiy87 commented 6 years ago

hi! MIT is ok for me

ogarcia commented 6 years ago

I think that we have two things here. For one side the code of plugin and for other side the templates.

For code of plugin any open license is good. We can see that code in header have MIT license that is ok.

For templates, I agree with @ArniDagur. Is a public domain work because are pre-made sentences that are not protected by copyright.

aperezdc commented 6 years ago

While I would be fine using another license and I do like the GPL myself, but given that the MIT license was chosen back when first published the plugin (maybe an oversight, thinking in retrospective), the path of least resistance is keeping the same license.

Regarding the templates/ subdir, I also think that @ArniDagur's idea of using the Unlicense is a pretty good idea.

@ogarcia From your comment I understand you would agree to using the Unlicense for the content under templates/. Could you please explicitly confirm?

@olshevskiy87 Sorry for pinging you again. Could you please also confirm whether using the Unlicense for content under templates/ is okay for you?

ogarcia commented 6 years ago

@aperezdc I confirm :+1:

aperezdc commented 6 years ago

Also, while the gathering of consensus is in process, let's not merge any PR that would affect files which do not have explicit licensing terms. That means that I will only merge commits that touch plugin/templates.vim in the meantime.