Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Relicense under dual MIT/Apache-2.0 #55

Open
11 of 13 tasks
emberian opened this issue Jan 8, 2016 · 37 comments
Open
11 of 13 tasks

Relicense under dual MIT/Apache-2.0 #55

emberian opened this issue Jan 8, 2016 · 37 comments

Comments

@emberian
Copy link

emberian commented Jan 8, 2016

This issue was automatically generated. Feel free to close without ceremony if
you do not agree with re-licensing or if it is not possible for other reasons.
Respond to @cmr with any questions or concerns, or pop over to
#rust-offtopic on IRC to discuss.

You're receiving this because someone (perhaps the project maintainer)
published a crates.io package with the license as "MIT" xor "Apache-2.0" and
the repository field pointing here.

TL;DR the Rust ecosystem is largely Apache-2.0. Being available under that
license is good for interoperation. The MIT license as an add-on can be nice
for GPLv2 projects to use your code.

Why?

The MIT license requires reproducing countless copies of the same copyright
header with different names in the copyright field, for every MIT library in
use. The Apache license does not have this drawback. However, this is not the
primary motivation for me creating these issues. The Apache license also has
protections from patent trolls and an explicit contribution licensing clause.
However, the Apache license is incompatible with GPLv2. This is why Rust is
dual-licensed as MIT/Apache (the "primary" license being Apache, MIT only for
GPLv2 compat), and doing so would be wise for this project. This also makes
this crate suitable for inclusion and unrestricted sharing in the Rust
standard distribution and other projects using dual MIT/Apache, such as my
personal ulterior motive, the Robigalia project.

Some ask, "Does this really apply to binary redistributions? Does MIT really
require reproducing the whole thing?" I'm not a lawyer, and I can't give legal
advice, but some Google Android apps include open source attributions using
this interpretation. Others also agree with
it
.
But, again, the copyright notice redistribution is not the primary motivation
for the dual-licensing. It's stronger protections to licensees and better
interoperation with the wider Rust ecosystem.

How?

To do this, get explicit approval from each contributor of copyrightable work
(as not all contributions qualify for copyright) and then add the following to
your README:

## License

Licensed under either of
 * Apache License, Version 2.0 ([LICENSE-APACHE](LICENSE-APACHE) or http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)
 * MIT license ([LICENSE-MIT](LICENSE-MIT) or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)
at your option.

### Contribution

Unless you explicitly state otherwise, any contribution intentionally submitted
for inclusion in the work by you, as defined in the Apache-2.0 license, shall be dual licensed as above, without any
additional terms or conditions.

and in your license headers, use the following boilerplate (based on that used in Rust):

// Copyright (c) 2016 handlebars-rust developers
//
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0
// <LICENSE-APACHE or http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> or the MIT
// license <LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>, at your
// option. All files in the project carrying such notice may not be copied,
// modified, or distributed except according to those terms.

Be sure to add the relevant LICENSE-{MIT,APACHE} files. You can copy these
from the Rust repo for a plain-text
version.

And don't forget to update the license metadata in your Cargo.toml to:

license = "MIT/Apache-2.0"

I'll be going through projects which agree to be relicensed and have approval
by the necessary contributors and doing this changes, so feel free to leave
the heavy lifting to me!

Contributor checkoff

To agree to relicensing, comment with :

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option

Or, if you're a contributor, you can check the box in this repo next to your
name. My scripts will pick this exact phrase up and check your checkbox, but
I'll come through and manually review this issue later as well.

@tailhook
Copy link
Contributor

tailhook commented Jan 8, 2016

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option

@chris-morgan
Copy link
Contributor

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

(Full stop! The sentence needs a full stop at the end of it!)

@untitaker
Copy link
Contributor

I give permission to Ning Sun (sunng87) to license my contributions to
handlebars-rust or handlebars-iron under any OSI-approved license.

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 04:28:11PM -0800, Chris Morgan wrote:

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

(Full stop! The sentence needs a full stop at the end of it!)


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#55 (comment)

@sunng87
Copy link
Owner

sunng87 commented Jan 9, 2016

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

3 similar comments
@ihrwein
Copy link
Contributor

ihrwein commented Jan 9, 2016

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

@TimNN
Copy link
Contributor

TimNN commented Jan 9, 2016

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

@BurntSushi
Copy link
Contributor

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

@freiguy1
Copy link
Contributor

freiguy1 commented Jan 9, 2016

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0
license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 8:33 AM Andrew Gallant [email protected]
wrote:

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0
license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#55 (comment)
.

@blaenk
Copy link
Contributor

blaenk commented Jan 9, 2016

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

1 similar comment
@SkylerLipthay
Copy link
Contributor

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

@rustonaut
Copy link
Contributor

rustonaut commented Jul 12, 2018

What is the current state of this?

Expect @hugoduncan, @Eric-Guo and @AlexTalker every agreed.
(Through by now there should be more people, which have to agree).

So I wonder if:

  1. it makes sense to get this agreement with any new pull request
  2. [maybe] if @hugoduncan, @Eric-Guo and @AlexTalker can't be reached
    to retrospectively remove their contribution (which sounds a bit
    extreme but somehow thing should be re-licensed). All of
    this contributions where not major so it should be viable (typo,
    impl Disply/Error on the old error type, typo + making a example look nicer).

Through the decision probably should be made after getting the
permission from all contributors since the list above was made
in 2016.

(Also note that 2. probably should be done through a rebase
to be on the safe side, which means any fork has to then
rebase their changes on-top of the new head, which is
slightly annoying, but at last github shows forks so all
people which forked can be notified))


Just to be on the clear side, all contributions are
appreciated, it is just that I thing moving to dual licensing
is important and this was the only practical thing I came
up with if people can't be reached.

@tailhook
Copy link
Contributor

MIT license allows sublicensing, which means you can use this work under a different license, just retain the copyright. So permission from all contributor isn't strictly required (as I think it's implied that they were licensing their work under MIT too). Am I misunderstanding the license?

@emberian
Copy link
Author

emberian commented Jul 14, 2018 via email

@hugoduncan
Copy link
Contributor

hugoduncan commented Jul 16, 2018 via email

@sunng87
Copy link
Owner

sunng87 commented Jul 18, 2018

Added new contributors to the table.

Name Status
sunng87 Agreed
@softprops Pending
blaenk Agreed
@gamebox Aggred
tailhook Agreed
untitaker Agreed
@killercup Agreed
@FauxFaux Agreed
@robinst Agreed
@ignatenkobrain Agreed
@azerupi Agreed
@SirVer Agreed
dathinab Agreed
@frewsxcv Agreed
@GuillaumeGomez Agreed
@mschmo Pending
@rofrol Pending
@SergioBenitez Agreed
@shepmaster Agreed
@eliovir Pending
@bbigras Agreed
@ghotiphud Agreed
@KalitaAlexey Pending
TimNN Agreed
SkylerLipthay Agreed
chris-morgan Agreed
@AlexTalker Pending
hugoduncan Agreed
freiguy1 Agreed
BurntSushi Agreed
@Eric-Guo Pending

@killercup
Copy link
Contributor

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

14 similar comments
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Contributor

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

@ignatenkobrain
Copy link
Contributor

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

@robinst
Copy link
Contributor

robinst commented Jul 18, 2018

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

@azerupi
Copy link
Contributor

azerupi commented Jul 18, 2018

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

@frewsxcv
Copy link
Contributor

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

@ghotiphud
Copy link
Contributor

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

@bbigras
Copy link
Contributor

bbigras commented Jul 18, 2018

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

@shepmaster
Copy link
Contributor

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

@gamebox
Copy link
Contributor

gamebox commented Jul 18, 2018

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

@FauxFaux
Copy link
Contributor

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

@SirVer
Copy link
Contributor

SirVer commented Jul 18, 2018

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

@SergioBenitez
Copy link
Contributor

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

@paulzhang5511
Copy link

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

@Eric-Guo
Copy link
Contributor

Eric-Guo commented Aug 6, 2021

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

@eliovir
Copy link
Contributor

eliovir commented Aug 6, 2021

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

1 similar comment
@hugoduncan
Copy link
Contributor

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

@AlexTalker
Copy link
Contributor

Feel like I've missed the party but anyway:
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option

@eliovir
Copy link
Contributor

eliovir commented Jan 14, 2022

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

3 similar comments
@KalitaAlexey
Copy link
Contributor

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

@cmrschwarz
Copy link
Contributor

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

@KalitaAlexey
Copy link
Contributor

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests