-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 935
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 #1473
Comments
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
6 similar comments
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.
… On Jun 4, 2021, at 1:12 PM, Dzmitry Malyshau ***@***.***> wrote:
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.
|
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
4 similar comments
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
12 similar comments
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
Thank you! I removed everyone up to @skierpage , plus m4b |
Could also be commits they (co)-authored but that were submitted in a PR by someone else. Might be good to also run a |
@de-vri-es Any suggestions how we can connect commiter name\email with GitHub nickname? |
I'm cloning some repos with commits by each user excluded so far to find their email. I'll show my finding here when it's complete :) Though I'll probably redact the emails, or use names. Shouldn't make it too easy on spam bots. |
SummaryAfter running git blame on the master branch, it looks like dakomer still has a little bit left in the CI files, which may not be a problem. masonblier still has a sizeable chunk of code in examples on the master branch with commit 76076d3. Worst case, those examples could be excluded from the license change. I could not find any remaining contributions for the others in the list up to and including skierpage. Details:chao-mu
(no hits, also search on email with git blame -e) dakomer
gzp-crey
(no hits, also used email address with jmitchell89
(no hits, also used email address with masonblier
bootra-dev danielzgtg
(no hits, also used email address with skierpage
(no hits, also used email address with |
Correction for chao-mu: They still have a lot of hits due to changing formatting rules and running cargo-fmt in commit a6e81dc. I would expect that is not a problem for a license change though.
|
thank you! So I removed @skierpage and re-added @masonblier |
I forgot to ping @andykilroy! |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option. |
From my side any liberate license is ok for past and future :) |
... |
I license past contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license,
allowing licensees to choose either at their option.
…On Sun, Jun 20, 2021, 8:49 AM psincf ***@***.***> wrote:
...
I license past contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license,
allowing licensees to choose either at their option.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1473 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEZTP2YADTRZJJY67CSYADTTXPVHANCNFSM46DF4TFQ>
.
|
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option. And I'd also like to agree to all future license changes, since I'm not that active at GitHub and that I saw this was a coincidence. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option. |
1 similar comment
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option. |
When this repository got re-licensed, i felt bad for not having waited my approval. |
I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option. |
* Add FindLsb / FindMsb * Fixes and tests for FindLsb/FindMsb * Add findLsb / findMsb as WGSL builtins * Fix tests * Fix incompatible type issue with MSL output * Requested changes * Test fewer cases of findLsb/findMsb
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, due to not being a "creative
work", e.g. a typo fix) and then add the following to your README:
and in your license headers, if you have them, use the following boilerplate
(based on that used in Rust):
It's commonly asked whether license headers are required. I'm not comfortable
making an official recommendation either way, but the Apache license
recommends it in their appendix on how to use the license.
Be sure to add the relevant
LICENSE-{MIT,APACHE}
files. You can copy thesefrom the Rust repo for a plain-text
version.
And don't forget to update the
license
metadata in yourCargo.toml
to: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 :
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.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: