search

nexylan / slack

MIT License
106 stars 24 forks source link

Change to MIT license confirmation #41

Closed soullivaneuh closed 5 years ago

soullivaneuh commented 6 years ago

After the discussion in https://github.com/maknz/slack/issues/95 with @maknz, he would like an approbation of all the contributors to confirm the LICENSE change made on v2.0 of this library.

I already did the change because to me, making a new major is enough, as it was done for swift-mailer. It seems not for many people and I'm OK with that.

However, I need an explicit "YES" from each person who has contributed code. Is everyone okay with this?

Of course, if somebody does not want the change, the LICENSE would go back to the v1 one.

rap2hpoutre commented 6 years ago

YES

vysinsky commented 6 years ago

YES

IonBazan commented 6 years ago

YES

qmcree commented 6 years ago

YES

mvatansever commented 6 years ago

YES

freekmurze commented 6 years ago

Sure, go ahead

TomasVotruba commented 6 years ago

Yes

iwiznia commented 6 years ago

Yes

jwcobb commented 6 years ago

Yes

stefanzweifel commented 6 years ago

Yes

soullivaneuh commented 6 years ago

Ping @maknz @drewbroadley @geodeveloper @Anahkiasen @rajabishek @tzookb

tzookb commented 6 years ago

Of course 💪🏽

soullivaneuh commented 5 years ago

Ping @maknz @drewbroadley @geodeveloper @Anahkiasen @rajabishek

Please just answer yes, or no. :+1:

drewbroadley commented 5 years ago

YES

maknz commented 5 years ago

Yes

Sent from my iPhone

On 24/09/2018, at 9:02 PM, Sullivan SENECHAL notifications@github.com wrote:

Ping @maknz @drewbroadley @geodeveloper @Anahkiasen @rajabishek

Please just answer yes, or no. 👍

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

Gummibeer commented 5 years ago

Only the commit by @geodeveloper is a big one with a real change in the sourcecode and added features. https://github.com/maknz/slack/commit/4e115c4f4217e45154be7e033807097ae0e110c6 The original PR was: https://github.com/maknz/slack/pull/51

soullivaneuh commented 5 years ago

Thanks a lot for the resume @Gummibeer! :+1:

@geodeveloper does not seem to be very active on GitHub nowadays... If anyone have an another way to contact him, I would be grateful to ask him if he can answer to the licence change asking.

Gummibeer commented 5 years ago

https://opensource.guide/legal/#what-if-i-want-to-change-the-license-of-my-project

In all cases you have to keep the current BSD 2 license just add an end-date. Because of the fact that BSD2 & MIT are compatible (so far I understand it) it could be done without his agreement. You could also add a hint. into the license file and/or source code that these snippets are licensed under BSD2 until they are changed with active MIT.

Last but not least you can write an email to @geodeveloper

git show 4e115c4f4217e45154be7e033807097ae0e110c6

commit 4e115c4f4217e45154be7e033807097ae0e110c6
Author: George <info@geodeveloper.net>
Date: Tue Jun 14 23:08:08 2016 +0200
soullivaneuh commented 5 years ago

In all cases you have to keep the current BSD 2 license just add an end-date

This is what I did by pushing a new major version.

it could be done without his agreement.

Well, it is not what you and @maknz said in https://github.com/maknz/slack/issues/95. Or I misunderstood your sentence. :-)

Gummibeer commented 5 years ago

At the moment you only have one https://github.com/nexylan/slack/blob/master/LICENSE file which only contains MIT. It should also contain the old BSD2 with a date-range 2014 - DD-MM-2018. Now we get to the point of "who has copyright and who not and what is needed to switch the license". No one here, I think, is a lawyer - so until you ask one you will only get assumptions, ideas und how others understand it. What I would do: 1) write an email to @geodeveloper and wait 1-2 weeks for an answer. 2) add a notice in the license file that everything is now licensed under MIT except the lines added by @geodeveloper (optional add inline license hints) 3) keep this issue open to allow him to answer with yes

What github says in this article is that you could not need the agreement if the licenses are compatible. Unfortunately there is no license-compatibility-check tool - so it's again guessing if it is or not.

Another option would be to say everything done after (datetime when you transfered the repo and done the license change) is licensed under MIT and everything else is BSD2 until all contributors agree to change the license.

You have a lot of options, some more legal/safe than the others but without asking a copyright-lawyer you won't get a "this is the way to go" just guesses.

The part with "the lines are BSD2 until they are changed": also this isn't 100% correct in every case. If you only remove a space it doesn't remove the copyright of the original author. To get around this you do have to do a total rewrite of these lines/logic. But there are also guesses that nothing is copyrightable what's not able to do in another way. And if I take a look into the PR https://github.com/maknz/slack/pull/51 the introduced changes are only copy'n'adjust'n'paste of the lines around. The protected variables as data-holder, the if(isset(...)), the setter&getter and the attributes in the toArray() function are nothing which has new logic. Just the same with other names. So it's a valid question to ask if this is copyrightable code or intellectual property.

soullivaneuh commented 5 years ago

At the moment you only have one file which only contains MIT.

Wrong: https://github.com/nexylan/slack/blob/1.x/LICENSE.md

This is exactly why I made a new major.

My end goal is to provide a tool to maintain the LICENSE files of nexylan package, so the requirement would be deleted.

At least, I may add a link to the old LICENSE on the changelog file.

@maknz Do you agree with @Gummibeer about the license compatibility and the end date?

Gummibeer commented 5 years ago

Also this is some kind of law-philosophy - is it enough to have the old file in another branch!? :/ If yes it's impossible to don't cover this point on git because there will everytime be a copy of the file in any place (commit). So far I understand it it has to stay beside the current license - my guess for this.

Anahkiasen commented 5 years ago

Yes

georgecoca commented 5 years ago

Yes!

Sorry guys for not confirming earlier, somehow I missed all these messages.

soullivaneuh commented 5 years ago

Oh right so we have all the confirmations we need, thanks a lot guys! :+1: