Open jsturdy opened 6 years ago
Could we have a brief summary of what the change entails? E.g. what’s the difference?
The links to the two licenses are provided in the second paragraph, from there one can read the full text, as well as the github page on choosing a license
Choice of license:
Legal stuff (though IANAL):
vfatqc-python-scripts
(e.g. PR #4)? It had no license at the time, so in principle we need explicit consent (even for MIT because it was added later).
Brief summary of issue
Unfortunately, not enough thought (on my part) was used initially in selecting a license for several packages and it has resulted in different licenses being selected for packages that have no real reason to be differently licensed. In the case of this package, contradictory information was packaged, an issue which was raised by @lmoureaux in #139 (thanks!)
As such, I am proposing changing the license of
gempython_gemplotting
(this repository) to an MIT license, to match the licensing done ingempython_vfatqc
.A further/secondary discussion (not in this thread) should be made regarding
xhal
,reg_utils
,cmsgmos_gempython
, which each state the MIT license in the python packaging metadata, but do not explicitly have a licence attached (no implicit expectation of a specific license from contributors)Types of issue
Contributors (as stated by github)
If the following people would write an explicit acceptance of the proposed license change, or provide explanation why they feel that keeping the GPLv3 is in their or the group's best interests, it would be much appreciated. Additionally, if you know that there are other contributors whose agreement should be solicited, please advise