search

barry-jay-personal / tree-calculus

Proofs in Coq for the book Reflective Programs in Tree Calculus
MIT License
51 stars 4 forks source link

Dual licensed? #2

Closed palmskog closed 3 years ago

palmskog commented 3 years ago

Regarding the license for this project, the file headers say LGPL-2.1-or-later, while the LICENSE file says it's the MIT license. The only way I can reconcile this apparent contradiction is that the project can be licensed under either LGPL or MIT, at the user's discretion (dual licensing). Is this the case? Or which license is the canonical one?

barry-jay-personal commented 3 years ago

Hi Karl,

when preparing the files for packaging, I shifted the license to MIT, as per the Coq community's preference. Something must have gone wrong along the way! I will fix this up in the next few days. Thanks for pointing this out.

Yours, Barry

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 9:30 AM Karl Palmskog notifications@github.com wrote:

Regarding the license for this project, the file headers say LGPL-2.1-or-later, while the LICENSE file says it's the MIT license. The only way I can reconcile this apparent contradiction is that the project can be licensed under either LGPL or MIT, at the user's discretion (dual licensing). Is this the case? Or which license is the canonical one?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/barry-jay-personal/tree-calculus/issues/2, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AL46LUO7OUC55YRMWXGWZLDSKYRA7ANCNFSM4SRGKZSQ .

barry-jay-personal commented 3 years ago

Hi Karl,

I've changed all licenses to MIT now, and created a new release. Hopefully that is all fixed now. Thanks again; do let me know if you find anything else.

Yours, Barry

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 4:12 PM Barry Jay barry.jay8@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Karl,

when preparing the files for packaging, I shifted the license to MIT, as per the Coq community's preference. Something must have gone wrong along the way! I will fix this up in the next few days. Thanks for pointing this out.

Yours, Barry

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 9:30 AM Karl Palmskog notifications@github.com wrote:

Regarding the license for this project, the file headers say LGPL-2.1-or-later, while the LICENSE file says it's the MIT license. The only way I can reconcile this apparent contradiction is that the project can be licensed under either LGPL or MIT, at the user's discretion (dual licensing). Is this the case? Or which license is the canonical one?

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/barry-jay-personal/tree-calculus/issues/2, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AL46LUO7OUC55YRMWXGWZLDSKYRA7ANCNFSM4SRGKZSQ .

palmskog commented 3 years ago

Looks good to me with only MIT license now, so closing this issue.