add LICENSE

[ruebot]

Need to choose a license - GPLv3? GPLv2? Apache 2.0?

[manez]

Seems like we can sidestep some of the patent language issues we have in the other stack if we just start out on GPLv2?

[daniel-dgi]

I put a tenative ansewr of GPLv3 in https://github.com/Islandora-Labs/chullo/blob/master/composer.json . If there's more suitable licenses, I'm all for it. Just let me know what's best.

[ruebot]

I think GPLv2 would be worth exploring given the patent discussions that have come up in the community, and the difficulty for institutions to sign CLAs given the patent language.

[daniel-dgi]

+1 Whatever makes it easier for folks to contribute is what we should do.

[ruebot]

This might be helpful: http://choosealicense.com/licenses/

[ruebot]

I suppose we should get other committer's thoughts on this: @whikloj, @acoburn, @DiegoPino?

[acoburn]

I generally lean strongly towards using Apache2 -- it's much more permissive. However, if this is going to be used in any way as part of a plugin for an existing GPL'ed codebase (e.g. drupal), then you have to use the GPL. That is, if this code ever interacts with drupal code, it needs to be GPL (since it's therefore a derivative product). If, however, it only interacts with data generated by drupal or fedora, then it can use whatever license you want. Of course, that's just my understanding of things, after having once written a plugin to a GPL'ed system (moodle) that interacted with an Apache Software Foundation product (vcl) -- basically, the ASF couldn't have anything to do with the plugin because it could affect the Apache2 license for the entire vcl project. I won't get into my personal opinion about the GPL 😄

[willtp87]

Was in the neighborhood http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html straight from the horse's mouth everyone in this conversation should read this.

[ruebot]

Well, this might answer our ongoing questions about GPLv2 in 7.x-1.x:

"When we say that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, it means there is no legal way to combine code under GPLv2 with code under GPLv3 in a single program. This is because both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are copyleft licenses: each of them says, “If you include code under this license in a larger program, the larger program must be under this license too.” There is no way to make them compatible. We could add a GPLv2-compatibility clause to GPLv3, but it wouldn't do the job, because GPLv2 would need a similar clause."

The way I'm reading it is that we can't have any GPLv2 code in Islandora 7.x-1.x, and similarly, since Islandora 7.x-2.x is GPLv3, this would have to be GPLv3.

[willtp87]

@ruebot it's a little more complicated: https://www.drupal.org/licensing/faq#q1 and I believe the foundation has the rights to change the licensing. 'since Islandora 7.x-2.x is GPLv3, this would have to be GPLv3.' is one derivative of the other? does not the foundation have the rights to change the licensing to both? or is there some other external GPLv3 piece?

[whikloj]

I think (after reading all this and associated links) that I like the GNU General Public License, version 3 or later. syntax.

[ruebot]

@willtp87 I'm actually curious about Drupal GPLv3, v2 and Affero modules working with each other, and if that is actually allowed because of what Mr. Stallman says.

[willtp87]

@ruebot It's shaky. I think the entire deployed Drupal system (core/modules/themes but not libraries) would need to be under the same license at any given time. When Islandora is installed Drupal and contrib modules are currently under v3 I think. Anyone not bringing in a contrib or core Islandora piece is doing so at their own risk and needs to be aware of licensing restrictions just as one should always be when developing or using software.

[acoburn]

I agree with @willtp87 . The only (minor) difference I would add is that the entire running Drupal system needs to be under a set of compatable licenses. At least it does if you want to redistribute the code.

[DiegoPino]

What about MIT one? It's the most permissive i think, and symphony2, which e.g is core part of Drupal 8(GPL2) is MIT. MIT is compatible with GPL2 and 3.

[acoburn]

MIT license++

[DiegoPino]

@willtp87 , is MIT ok for you?

[willtp87]

The use of MIT in a foundation project would be a fundamental change in both our common and written practice http://islandora.ca/developers/lsap . I think that any such thing should not proceed without discussion at the highest level of the foundation. I would suggest to license this at GPLv3 as normal and if there is some strong rational to change the license to bring it up at a higher level.

[willtp87]

We should also clarify in the LSAP what any acceptable licenses are.

[ruebot]

I believe we already account for this in item 6 of the LSAP:

ensure the code is accompanied by either:
A GPLv3 license file if the code is a Drupal module.
An acceptable open source license file if not a Drupal module.

[ruebot]

...but that said, we don't say what "An acceptable open source license" is 😄

[willtp87]

We`re suffering simultaneous edits.

[ruebot]

✋ <-- high-five jinx?

[ruebot]

Looking at this and this, I believe we would be safe with going with an Apache 2.0 or MIT license if our intention is to be more permissive, and allow for easier institutional contributions.

Moving forward, our Drupal modules would have to be GPLv3 or v2; GPLv3 if we use Apache 2.0. Everything else in the 7.x-2.x project is up to the contributors (Islandora Foundation). The LSAP process already allows for this; "An acceptable open source license file if not a Drupal module." I'll take an acceptable open source license to mean an open source license that is GPLv3 compatible; see the "Approvals" section here. And, we can clarify/enshrine this on the next Roadmap Committee call.

[ruebot]

Thinking more about this, and since we have consensus with MIT, I'm going to vote for that as well since we already have some GPLv2 out in the community.

[mjordan]

My $0.02, since Chullo is installed using composer, it's not being distributed with Drupal, so there's no obligation for its license to comply with Drupal's (which according to the COPYRIGHT.txt file, is "either version 2 of the [GPL] License, or (at your option) any later version".).

[mjordan]

@ruebot can we slow down on this for a minute? Don't you think the IF Board should have a say in which license we choose?

[ruebot]

@mjordan got this exact discussion going on here #13

[mjordan]

Perfect. Can we hold off on merging any PRs until at least after the next Roadmap?

[ruebot]

@mjordan yessir!

[daniel-dgi]

@mjordan I'm not touching it. I don't think any of the other committers will, either. I'm more than content to let it sit here license-less until the the higher-ups come to an agreement.

[manez]

Thanks folks. We (the IF) may consult a lawyer at some point in the not-too-distant-future to unravel our options regarding the patent language in our CLAs, so there's that as well.

[ruebot]

It might be worth getting in touch with the Software Freedom Law Center, and see if they have any advice.

[manez]

That is an awesome suggestion. @ruebot ++

[DiegoPino]

@ruebot 👍

[mjordan]

👍

[ruebot]

Actually, all the people I remember from the Software Freedom Law Center are now at the Software Freedom Conservatory.

[ruebot]

Just a note, the Roadmap Committee discussed this at their last meeting: https://github.com/Islandora/islandora/wiki/Roadmap-Meeting-October-16-2015-2pm-AST#new-business

[dannylamb]

Ceremoniously cuts the ribbon on being the foundation's Tech Lead.

Resolved with #13

Thanks everyone for your input on this, and for the Roadmap committee on coming to an agreement on licensing.