Rez License Change: LGPLv3 to Apache2.0

[nerdvegas]

We want to change rez license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0. To do this requires permission from all code contributors.

Why have you emailed me?

You are a contributor to the rez project and we require your permission to change its license.

How do the licenses differ?

LGPLv3 is a copyleft licence, whereas Apache2.0 is a permissive license. A good short explanation of these licenses can be seen here: https://www.cnx-software.com/2011/10/10/open-source-licenses-overview-gpl-lgpl-apache-bsd/. In short, there are less limitations on how you can use rez if it is licensed with Apache2.0.

Why Apache2.0?

Apache2.0 is the preferred license of the Academy Software Foundation (https://www.aswf.io/about/).

Why do we want to do this?

LGPL creates a legal gray area for some studios, who may be hesitant to use the project for that reason. Under LGPL, a larger work using rez would need to provide the full rez sourcecode in its distribution, and would itself need to be LGPL-licensed, unless "dynamically" linked to rez (which in python could be interpreted as not being contained directly in the distribution).

What do I need to do?

Either add a comment to this ticket, or reply to an email sent to you, using the following text:

I, <your full name here>, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

Thank you kindly
A

[maxnbk]

I, Stephen Mackenzie, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

…

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 8:13 AM allan johns ***@***.***> wrote: We want to change rez license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0. To do this requires permission from all code contributors. Why have you emailed me? You are a contributor to the rez project and we require your permission to change its license. How do the licenses differ? LGPLv3 is a copyleft licence, whereas Apache2.0 is a permissive license. A good short explanation of these licenses can be seen here: https://www.cnx-software.com/2011/10/10/open-source-licenses-overview-gpl-lgpl-apache-bsd/. In short, there are less limitations on how you can use rez if it is licensed with Apache2.0. Why Apache2.0? Apache2.0 is the preferred license of the Academy Software Foundation ( https://www.aswf.io/about/). Why do we want to do this? LGPL creates a legal gray area for some studios, who may be hesitant to use the project for that reason. Under LGPL, a larger work using rez would need to provide the full rez sourcecode in its distribution, and would itself need to be LGPL-licensed, unless "dynamically" linked to rez (which in python could be interpreted as not being contained directly in the distribution). What do I need to do? Either add a comment to this ticket, or reply to an email sent to you, using the following text: I, <your full name here>, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0. Thank you kindly A — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1119>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABPOE3RHT2FOLJ6NACFA5TTT6OEFNANCNFSM5CWWHLZA> . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS <https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&utm_campaign=notification-email> .

[davidlatwe]

I, Lai Ta-Wei, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[JeanChristopheMorinPerso]

I, Jean-Christophe Morin, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[instinct-vfx]

I, Thorsten Kaufmann, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[KelSolaar]

I, Thomas Mansencal, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[mchamberlain]

I, Morné Chamberlain, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[skral]

I, Sebastian Kral, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[zachlewis]

I, Zach Lewis, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[loonghao]

I, Long Hao, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[bpabel]

I, Brendan Abel, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[predat]

I, Sylvain Maziere, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[j0yu]

I, Joseph Yu, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[mstreatfield]

I, Mark Streatfield, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[renaudll]

I, Renaud Lessard Larouche, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[smaragden]

I, Fredrik Brännbacka, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[bfloch]

I, Blazej Floch, am a current or former contributor to the rez
project, and I give my permission to change its software license from
LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[bsergean]

I, Benjamin Sergeant, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[bareya]

I, Piotr Barejko, am a current or former contributor to the rez
project, and I give my permission to change its software license from
LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[dbr]

I, Ben Dickson, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[sparkalive]

I, Sehwi Park, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[nerdvegas]

Current stats:

• accepted: 20
• contacted and not heard from yet: 26
• contact details unknown: 7
• rejected: 0

[mottosso]

I, Marcus Ottosson, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

Good move! ❤️

which in python could be interpreted as not being contained directly in the distribution

Can you elaborate on this? I've seen similar notions in the Blender community. Does it mean that this comment..

import rez

..is now dynamically linking Rez and is required to be LPGL'd as well? Or does it only apply if I put in a text file and upload it to GitHub?

[asztalosdani]

I, Daniel Asztalos, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[fxnut]

I, Andy Nicholas, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[sebastianelsner]

I, Sebastian Elsner, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[mychoko]

I, Mylene Pepe, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[adriankrupa]

I, Adrian Krupa, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[nerdvegas]

I don't believe so, I took it to mean that you're fine as long as the LGPL code isn't actually embedded into your project - I would say that just listing a requirement in your package, and importing said requirement, can reasonably be considered "dynamic linking" and thus your own code does not get pulled into the LGPL umbrella. Here's a thread explaining from python POV (and which is my interpretation also): https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8580223/using-python-module-on-lgpl-license-in-commercial-product Thx A

…

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 4:00 PM Marcus Ottosson ***@***.***> wrote: I, Marcus Ottosson, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0. Good move! ❤️ which in python could be interpreted as not being contained directly in the distribution Can you elaborate on this? I've seen similar notions in the Blender community. Does it mean that this comment.. import rez ..is now dynamically linking Rez and is required to be LPGL'd as well? Or does it only apply if I put in a text file and upload it to GitHub? — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1119 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAMOUSSBEGTZ4ZAFEGNHC7TUDANQRANCNFSM5CWWHLZA> . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS <https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.

[rfletchr]

I, Robert Fletcher, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[fnaum]

I, Federico Naum, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[gst]

I, Gregory Starck, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[pmolodo]

I, Paul Molodowitch am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[jasperges]

I, Jasper van Nieuwenhuizen, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[holofermes]

I, Fabio Piparo, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[cwmartin]

I, Christopher Martin, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[chadrik]

I, Chad Dombrova, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[douglaslassance]

I, Douglas Lassance, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[lambdaclan]

I, lambdaclan (Ira), am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[JoshkVFX]

I, Josh Kelly, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[yawpitch]

I have no interest in hindering this conversion, thus:

I, Michael Morehouse, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

However, that said:

LGPL creates a legal gray area for some studios, who may be hesitant to use the project for that reason. Under LGPL, a larger work using rez would need to provide the full rez sourcecode in its distribution, and would itself need to be LGPL-licensed, unless "dynamically" linked to rez (which in python could be interpreted as not being contained directly in the distribution).

If we take that interpretation as gospel then Rez must remain under LGPL, since it vendors a copy of an LGPLv2.1 licensed library.

I don’t subscribe to that interpretation; the vendored AMPQ library is not modified, it’s license accompany’s it, and a Rez user is not hindered from using a modified version of AMPQ, so IMHO (though with the usual IANAL caveat) all of the rights the LGPL exists to protect have been maintained. The vast majority of Rez is clearly not “based” on AMPQ, so at worst only the “minimal corresponding source” would need to be made available to downstream users of code incorporating Rez.

So no argument against the change, I’m just not certain a particularly copyleft-averse lawyer-type would be completely mollified with that vendored code in place.

[nerdvegas]

We've recently gotten rid of py-amqp specifically for this reason, see https://github.com/nerdvegas/rez/releases/tag/2.96.0 And thanks for the email! You just saved me a bunch of work. A

…

On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 10:33 AM Michael Morehouse ***@***.***> wrote: I have no interest in hindering this conversion, thus: I, Michael Morehouse, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0. However, that said: LGPL creates a legal gray area for some studios, who may be hesitant to use the project for that reason. Under LGPL, a larger work using rez would need to provide the full rez sourcecode in its distribution, and would itself need to be LGPL-licensed, unless "dynamically" linked to rez (which in python could be interpreted as not being contained directly in the distribution). If we take that interpretation as gospel then Rez must remain under LGPL, since it vendors a copy of an LGPLv2.1 licensed library. I don’t subscribe to that interpretation; the vendored AMPQ library is not modified, it’s license accompany’s it, and a Rez user is not hindered from using a modified version of AMPQ, so IMHO (though with the usual IANAL caveat) all of the rights the LGPL exists to protect have been maintained. The vast majority of Rez is clearly not “based” on AMPQ, so at worst only the “minimal corresponding source” would need to be made available to downstream users of code incorporating Rez. So no argument against the change, I’m just not certain a particularly copyleft-averse lawyer-type would be completely mollified with that vendored code in place. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1119 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAMOUSUGJRE7FVCG5CDQQSLUKRSTHANCNFSM5CWWHLZA> . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS <https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.

[yawpitch]

We've recently gotten rid of py-amqp specifically for this reason, see https://github.com/nerdvegas/rez/releases/tag/2.96.0

I saw the move to Pika, but vendor/amqp still seems to be there.

[nerdvegas]

Ah so it is. I recall now I was planning on leaving removal of anything until a last step before the actual licence change, in case we needed to revert for whatever reason. So yes this will definitely be gone when the licence change happens. thx A

…

On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 11:26 AM Michael Morehouse ***@***.***> wrote: We've recently gotten rid of py-amqp specifically for this reason, see https://github.com/nerdvegas/rez/releases/tag/2.96.0 I saw the move to Pika, but vendor/amqp still seems to be there. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1119 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAMOUSWGNIFGXXYR7VDPFSDUKRY3BANCNFSM5CWWHLZA> . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS <https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.

[willjp]

I, Will Pittman, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[manuelkoester]

I, Manuel Köster, am a current or former contributor to the rez project, and I give my permission to change its software license from LGPLv3 to Apache2.0.

[pombredanne]

The setup.py still references the LGPL here https://github.com/nerdvegas/rez/blob/d4f29f882aec0c358451faa1f92c456ed7836fa3/setup.py#L77 and here https://github.com/nerdvegas/rez/blob/d4f29f882aec0c358451faa1f92c456ed7836fa3/setup.py#L104

[nerdvegas]

Thanks for catching this, I'll just push this minor fix to master.

…

On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 10:10 PM Philippe Ombredanne < ***@***.***> wrote: The setup.py still references the LGPL here https://github.com/nerdvegas/rez/blob/d4f29f882aec0c358451faa1f92c456ed7836fa3/setup.py#L77 and here https://github.com/nerdvegas/rez/blob/d4f29f882aec0c358451faa1f92c456ed7836fa3/setup.py#L104 — You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1119 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAMOUSSILKOVVY3FVORH5TTUP44J5ANCNFSM5CWWHLZA> . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS <https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.