search

iopleke / MMPLv2

Minecraft Mod Public License v2
http://jakimfett.github.io/MMPLv2/
Other
31 stars 15 forks source link

The license is not licensed. #10

Closed Michagogo closed 9 years ago

Michagogo commented 9 years ago

There is no license applied to this license. This means that all copyrights in the license are owned by the authors of the various parts, and all rights are reserved, other than those released in the GitHub terms of service. To fix this, you'd need to get all authors of/contributors to any part of the license to agree to release it under a license of some sort.

FayeAlephNil commented 9 years ago

Yeah that's a problem. MIT license @jakimfett and @jadedcat?

jakimfett commented 9 years ago

Possibly...not completely sure though. I almost want to do it under the WTFPL, because the license itself should be able to be reused as needed.

I haven't completely woken up yet, so I may decide this was a horrible idea later.

cuchaz commented 9 years ago

Creative commons might actually be an appropriate license for MMPLv2

Michagogo commented 9 years ago

Don't forget about the upstream, the BC guys...

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:46 PM, cuchaz notifications@github.com wrote:

Creative commons might actually be an appropriate license for MMPLv2

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/jakimfett/MMPLv2/issues/10#issuecomment-68384230.

FayeAlephNil commented 9 years ago

@Michagogo yeah @jakimfett tweeted to @SirSengir trying to get perms to extend the license

jakimfett commented 9 years ago

It would appear that @spacetoad was the one who wrote the original license. Trying to get permission from him right now.

FayeAlephNil commented 9 years ago

Any progress on the perms?

jakimfett commented 9 years ago

Nothing so far. Maybe @asiekierka can ping @spacetoad again? I know spacetoad was busy with IRL stuff, so it may be a bit.

FayeAlephNil commented 9 years ago

Also, I still think that the MIT license would be a great fit for this

jakimfett commented 9 years ago

So here's a thought...the current version of the license is almost 100% different (I did a diff, and the only things that are the same are three headings for sections) than the MMPLv1...given that it's a complete rewrite at this point, do we need to get permission from spacetoad?

I'm honestly not sure how copyright applies to text that technically started as a derivative, but no longer has any of the original text.

FayeAlephNil commented 9 years ago

I think it would fall under significant changes. I say we go ahead and license it under MIT

cuchaz commented 9 years ago

If we're not sharing any text with the original license, then there's no copyright infringement.

It would be kind of a nice gesture to credit the original license as inspiration for this one though.

jakimfett commented 9 years ago

Definitely going to credit the original license. It was a good solid inspiration for the MMPLv2, and I'm all about credit where credit is due.

As far as which license to put this under...I'm actually considering my "Don't Be a Jerk" license. Out of curiosity, @Strikingwolf, what benefits does the MIT give us over something openly permissive, like the WTFPL?

cuchaz commented 9 years ago

MIT and WTFPL are basically the same thing, except the MIT is more explicit about what rights are granted and also includes a no warranty section. I'd pick the MIT license over the WTFPL (even though I really like the WTFPL) just because it's already held up to lawyer scrutiny.

FayeAlephNil commented 9 years ago

Basically what @cuchaz said.

FayeAlephNil commented 9 years ago

Is this ready to license BTW

jakimfett commented 9 years ago

I decided on MIT for the license of the license. I'd say it's 95% ready to go, I'm still tweaking some last bits, but overall it's solid.