search

maciejhirsz / kobold

Easy declarative web interfaces.
https://docs.rs/kobold/
Mozilla Public License 2.0
385 stars 7 forks source link

Change LICENSE from LGLP-3.0 to MPL-2.0 #37

Closed maciejhirsz closed 1 year ago

maciejhirsz commented 1 year ago

Discussion in #32.

@ltfschoen since you've made some changes I must ask: are you okay with this?

CC @ranaya-formant @mbaulch

ltfschoen commented 1 year ago

yes, i'm all for open source too.

just to be clear on the requirements, is it sufficient to just add the MPL-2.0 LICENSE document, which i assume is the same as the latest LICENSE document in this repo, in the project root of forks like it's mentioned here https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8831/pros-and-cons-of-using-mpl-2-0-license.

so in the repo I'm using here I'd just replace the GPL-2.0 LICENSE file with the MPL-2.0 one.

maciejhirsz commented 1 year ago

is it sufficient to just add this MPL-2.0 LICENSE document in the project root of forks like it's mentioned here

Technically yes if you have a LICENSE file.

The text of the license comes with a notice that's intended to be put in source code:

This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public
License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this
file, You can obtain one at https://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/.

Though that notice itself is technically optional, per:

If it is not possible or desirable to put the notice in a particular file, then You may include the notice in a location (such as a LICENSE file in a relevant directory) where a recipient would be likely to look for such a notice.

Now that you mentioned it, I will add it to the files just to be prudent.

ltfschoen commented 1 year ago

i had a read of the license and have a weird question (I'm not well versed on legal documents).

if for example someone forked this repo and made some changes but then they died and github suspended their account for being inactive such that their fork was no longer open-source (or they didn't die, but their github account was suspended, and causing their fork to not be publicly available) then could that still warrant a notice of non-compliance with the MPL-2.0 License being sent to the contributor, and litigation being braught against them if they didn't make the code open-source (but they might be dead or off the grid for more than a month) again so they'd be compliant again prior to 30 days after their receipt of the notice?

if that's the case it might be easier to comply with MPL-2.0 in those circumstances if forks of the code base were moved onto a decentralised git version control host?

maciejhirsz commented 1 year ago

IANAL and this is obviously not a legal advice but I believe LICENSE would only be violated if you distrubted a modified closed-source fork of Kobold, or distributed an app using a modified close-source fork of Kobold. Just the modified code existing somewhere shouldn't be a problem, and in this particular case for anything to happen I would have to know about it to begin with and take action.

Also not really sure how you'd litigate against someone dead :sweat_smile:.