search

nucleus-js / design

This repo is for the core design, discussion, spec, and tests for nucleus implementations.
Other
110 stars 20 forks source link

License #7

Closed Fishrock123 closed 8 years ago

Fishrock123 commented 8 years ago

I'd like there to be a License in place before I start contributing here.

In the event that this was useful enough to node to become part of the nodejs org, it may be prudent to license it under MIT as that is the easiest for us to take on. (Apache could be a better option, due to patents protection, and we'd no doubt also be ok with that. Many foundations seem to be.)

@creationix

rvagg commented 8 years ago

@creationix fwiw there's a lot of angst atm wrt MIT and what to do about it for patent protection, even talk of doing a CCLA for Node to cover it. The lawyers tell us that Apache would alleviate the problem because of the specific language included in the latest version. A proposal we have in front of us is to even do dual licensing for Node where commits into the future are covered by Apache and everything historically is MIT. You might want to look into this if you think this is going to go anywhere, they're saying that patents are the new battleground in open source licensing so expect it to become more pertinent.

creationix commented 8 years ago

@rvagg I don't have a strong opinion either way and have used Apache on the Luvit project for exactly this reason. I initially chose MIT here because it was what node uses. If node is trying to move to Apache, I'm fine with switching.

Fishrock123 commented 8 years ago

@rvagg I had discussed that but we weren't sure it was actually that large of an issue considering it doesn't cover corporate CLA's? (Also re: updated node issues info)

rvagg commented 8 years ago

Yeah, I really don't know, my eyes glaze over when they talk about this stuff but my understanding was that Apache would help alleviate most of the concerns about patents and switching to it now would be ideal.

@mikeal, @jasnell ping, halp!

jasnell commented 8 years ago

Yes, Apache would be ideal given that it includes a patent license built in.

There are two approaches to switching if there is pre-existing code:

  1. Switch completely to Apache, in which case you must get all contributors to agree, or
  2. Switch to Apache at a given point in time. All contributions up to that point are under the old license, all contributions after that point are under Apache.

With both it's easier to do it sooner than later. On Jun 12, 2016 7:54 PM, "Rod Vagg" notifications@github.com wrote:

Yeah, I really don't know, my eyes glaze over when they talk about this stuff but my understanding was that Apache would help alleviate most of the concerns about patents and switching to it now would be ideal.

@mikeal https://github.com/mikeal, @jasnell https://github.com/jasnell ping, halp!

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/creationix/nucleus/issues/7#issuecomment-225479826, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAa2eTfCSLzh_3S3LKASKzY3Wr1XXYLjks5qLMZUgaJpZM4It4Mc .

creationix commented 8 years ago

@ashleygwilliams, @Fishrock123, @steveklabnik would any of you oppose to switching to Apache?

Fishrock123 commented 8 years ago

I'm ok with switching.

steveklabnik commented 8 years ago

The usual Rust universe is dual licenced MIT/Apache2, I am fine with whatever open source or free software license you wish.

mikeal commented 8 years ago

Apache2 is a better license all around ;)

Fishrock123 commented 8 years ago

@ashleygwilliams Could you please chime in on this?

ashleygwilliams commented 8 years ago

hi! sorry! i usually use MIT or ISC but i'm happy with whatever ya'll think is best.

creationix commented 8 years ago

Cool, sounds like everyone is cool with Apache. I'll switch to that.

creationix commented 8 years ago

Done a78055aefe996a9ade787a9a438c06d06845dae7.