sergeyklay
commented
4 years ago From https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
Expat License (#Expat)
This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
Some people call this license “the MIT License,” but that term is misleading, since MIT has used many licenses for software. It is also ambiguous, since the same people also call the X11 license “the MIT License,” failing to distinguish them. We recommend not using the term “MIT License.”
For substantial programs it is better to use the Apache 2.0 license since it blocks patent treachery.
skvadrik
rexroni
cyanogilvie
DemiMarie
pmetzger
juliaclement
ethindp
MarkAtwood
helly25
mirabilos
This is a proposal to change re2c license to one of the widely recognized, OSI and FSF approved licenses (most likely MIT). I'm creating the bug as a way to attract attention and possibly gather comments. I realize this won't cover all re2c users, but it's better than nothing (and I will also send an email to the mailing lists).
To clarify, re2c will remain free and open source software, and this change should not affect the users.
What is the current license?
Historically re2c uses a custom "public domain" license, worded as follows:
Why change?
It is getting increasingly difficult to use current license as a proof that re2c is free software. There is no SPDX. Github and journals like Software Impacts do recognize it. Personally I see nothing wrong with public domain, but at the same time I feel that not changing the license to an FSF and OSI approved one is the equivalent of Asimov's "...through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm".
Do I have the right?
I don't know. This is not my own project --- many people have contributed to re2c over the years, and some have spent considerable time on the project. I am the only active author: none of the other authors get in touch (sadly, not all of them are alive by now). I have made by far the most contributions to the project in the number of commits, and I am the only remaining developer with commit access to the source code repositories. I am not worried that someone will sue me (it seems extremely unlikely), but rather that it may alert or create problems for some re2c users.
Change to what?
There are two aspects: 1) what the license says and 2) how it is interpreted. Personally I prefer "public domain" licenses that don't have any requirements, like Unlicense and 0-BSD. However, they are not as widely accepted as MIT, and not always approved by various projects and organizations. Since the only reason to change license is to make re2c easier to use, it makes sense to choose a less appealing, but more default option.
MIT. Pros: it is the most widely recognized OSI and FSF approved license, its text is short and readable, it is technically very close to the current license (unlikely to cause license troubles for any re2c users). Cons: it adds one requirement not present in the current license (copy-pasting the license), it doesn't have the words "public domain" in it, and it requires the year and name.
Unlicense. Pros: it is FSF approved, it is recognized as a "public domain" license, it does not require copy-pasting the license text, and I like the wording, the name and the project goals. Cons: I don't thinks it's OSI approved, and some companies like Google exclude it from the allowed list. I'm afraid it may create more technical problems for re2c uses than the seemingly more restrictive MIT license.
Zero-Clause BSD / Free Public License 1.0.0 (0BSD). Pros: OSI approved, short, recognized as public domain, no requirement to copy license notice. Cons: not FSF approved, less widely used.
Other alternatives were also considered, but seem to be worse than the above: ISC is like MIT but less widely used, CC0 seems more for data than code (and the webcite says not to use it for public domain, "Using CC0").
I'm leaning more towards MIT, although I personally like the Unlicense better.