tarsius
commented
6 years ago Friendly ping!
Sorry for being pushy, but it looks like Richard Stallman is going to request the removal of all unlicensed packages from Melpa in less than two weeks. If enough maintainers soon act in response to requests such as this one, then I might be able to convince him not to make that mistake, giving the remaining authors more time to act.
I think it would be a bit mistake to remove the unlicensed packages without giving maintainers enough time to act as that has the potential of causing a lot of bad blood.
So if you do have the time to do it now, then please do so. It would buy other maintainers more time.
Thanks a lot!
Ps: I am also contacting the maintainers of some packages that are not being distributed on Melpa. If your package is one of those, then please specify the license soon anyway.
Pps: You don't have to use the "GPLv3" or "GPLv3, or (at your option) any later version". You could also use another license that is compatible to the GPLv3, such as the MIT license. Please note that "the MIT license" is ambigious. To avoid that ambiguity you should put this text in a file named LICENSE.
Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.Please also consider adding the same text to each library header. Only adding a line ;; License: MIT to library headers should be avoided because of the mentioned ambiguity.
shajra
mpickering
cocreature
Could you please specify the license used for this package?
Assuming that you want to release under "the GPL v3 or any later version", the best way to do that would be to add this permission statement to the library header:
Also consider adding a
LICENSEfile containing the text of the GPL-3. You could add just that file without also adding the above persmission statement, but if you do that, then the "or (at your option) any later version" bit won't be known. So I recommend that you add both the actual license and the permission statement.If you find the permission statement to be too noisy, then you could instead add one of these following lines to the header. If you do that, then it becomes more important to also add the
LICENSEfile - a judge might decide that such a line by itself is not sufficient. Still, adding just such a line is better than not specifing the license at all.