[Discussion] Sublicense Git Gud under copyleft license?

[sahansk2]

I'd think that we'd want to ensure that if other entities try to build upon Git Gud, whether it be improving the Python API or adding new levels, they should make those changes open-source as well. They could monetize it if they're using some kind of SaaS model, as long as it's open-source. Thoughts?

[benthayer]

To add to the discussion: Any existing code already written is and always will be under the MIT license. If we modify the code, those modifications will be under whatever license we attribute it to, but we will always have to make it clear that many portions of the code are under the MIT license.

Beyond the legal side of thing, obviously we want to make the game as accessible as possible. This means that we should encourage people to host this online and let people play the game, possibly with modifications. If we allow closed-source modifications (as we do now), then that could be an incentive to host the game and to modify the game in ways that make it easier to host.

My priority is that people use the game. Do you have an idea for a different license we can use?

[sahansk2]

To add to the discussion: Any existing code already written is and always will be under the MIT license. If we modify the code, those modifications will be under whatever license we attribute it to, but we will always have to make it clear that many portions of the code are under the MIT license.

That doesn't appear to be the case, from what I see in this section. The only requirement of MIT license is that the license is never removed, and that you don't try to hold the person who MIT licensed it accountable. Quoted from Wikipedia:

That is, their code can be combined with a program under the GPL without conflict, and the new combination would have the GPL applied to the whole (but the other license would not so apply).

So, telling people that parts of the GPL'd code are MIT is, while true, misleading. I think.

Beyond the legal side of thing, obviously we want to make the game as accessible as possible. This means that we should encourage people to host this online and let people play the game, possibly with modifications. If we allow closed-source modifications (as we do now), then that could be an incentive to host the game and to modify the game in ways that make it easier to host.

Hosting seems to be a different story, actually -- IANYL, but my understanding is that if people try to distribute Git Gud, GPLv3 requires that they disclose the source. If SaaS (entities hosting Git Gud on their servers) modifications are made and never distributed, then it seems like they can keep it "closed source". The AGPL forces entities to disclose the source if they host it by themselves.

My priority is that people use the game. Do you have an idea for a different license we can use?

Not a clue. Maybe adding a help wanted tag is warranted?

To anybody else reading this who is more well versed in open-source licenses, feel free to comment if I made any inaccuracies.