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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Apache License (2.0) #487

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 6, 2024
Merged

Apache License (2.0) #487

merged 1 commit into from
Sep 6, 2024

Conversation

kovetskiy
Copy link
Owner

strip common clause license condition v1.0

@kovetskiy
strip common clause license condition v1.0
97ce7b9 
Signed-off-by: Egor Kovetskiy <e.kovetskiy@gmail.com>
@kovetskiy kovetskiy requested a review from mrueg August 16, 2024 11:40
@mrueg
Copy link
Collaborator

mrueg commented Aug 20, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Checking with someone knowledgeable about relicensing, they suggested to ask all contributors for confirmation first before we proceed.

If you're in this list, you've contributed to mark. Could you please respond with "I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0"?

@mrueg
Copy link
Collaborator

mrueg commented Aug 20, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Pinging the folks separately as I run out of pings in the list.
@tillepille
@ToruKawaguchi
@tyler-copilot
@vpommier
@wbh1
@willgorman
@xiu
@zackerydev

@joyfulrabbit
Copy link
Contributor

joyfulrabbit commented Aug 20, 2024 via email

@jfreeland
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

1 similar comment
@lukiffer
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@lukiffer
Copy link
Contributor

fwiw, my experience with this suggests that the maintainer can change the license at will that will apply to the current state (HEAD) and all contributions thereafter. If the maintainer is a governing body (such as a foundation or steering committee) that body would need to vote to make the change.

If you're talking about retroactively changing the license (for the entire history of the project) the approach you're taking is likely correct.

@willgorman
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

3 similar comments
@zackerydev
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@carnei-ro
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@eitchugo
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@nyarly
Copy link
Contributor

nyarly commented Aug 20, 2024

I'm fine with relicensing my contributions to Apache 2.0.

@Fethbita
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@nyarly
Copy link
Contributor

nyarly commented Aug 20, 2024

@lukiffer My understanding is that every "release" is provided under the then-active license. The upshot is that if the license is changed, consumers can continue to use old copies under the previous license - and since often those licenses allow for derivative works with minimal restrictions, forks to retain the old license are common.

This is a different case, and the difference is intimately tied to how licensing works. Regardless of the license, the right to choose how rights are granted to consumers of a work derives from the copyright - in effect, the creator of a work (usually) holds a legal right on how it's used. A license is a formal statement about that use.

So the trick here is not how the license will bind people, it's who has the right to decide what the license shall be? One argument: the Licensor: Egor Kovetskiy statement in the LICENSE file is an assertion of copyright by Egor, and all us contributors should've understood that when we issued PRs. (I'm fine with that reading, in general, personally.)

But, we might argue that we retain copyright over our contributions, and since there wasn't a clear statement one way or the other, it's a reasonable position to hold. Thus, this (I fear, quixotic) attempt to get agreement from everyone who's ever contributed to the project.

I've contributed to projects that required a GPG-signed "contributor covenant" before they'd accept PRs, to avoid situations like this. A CONTRIBUTING file that asserts something similar might also be useful. (essentially, add a paragraph to CONTRIBUTING that says something like "I transfer whatever copyright I have to my contributions to the project owner(s) by making a pull request")

Like a lot of OSS licensing stuff, most of this hasn't seen a legal test, so who knows what matters.

@xiu
Copy link
Contributor

xiu commented Aug 20, 2024

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

3 similar comments
@PhilippReinke
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@rofafor
Copy link
Contributor

rofafor commented Aug 20, 2024

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@beeme1mr
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@camielwnzl
Copy link
Contributor

camielwnzl commented Aug 20, 2024 via email

@klauern
Copy link
Contributor

klauern commented Aug 20, 2024

I agree👍🏻

@princespaghetti
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@bernd
Copy link
Contributor

bernd commented Aug 20, 2024

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0.

Thank you!

@ToruKawaguchi
Copy link

ToruKawaguchi commented Aug 20, 2024 via email

2 similar comments
@EppO
Copy link
Contributor

EppO commented Aug 20, 2024

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@JAndritsch
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@lucasoskorep
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

That being said, why the switch to a license with commercial use?

@Skeeve
Copy link
Contributor

Skeeve commented Aug 21, 2024

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

1 similar comment
@Hi-Fi
Copy link
Contributor

Hi-Fi commented Aug 21, 2024

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@snejus
Copy link
Contributor

snejus commented Aug 21, 2024 via email

@dreampuf
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

3 similar comments
@oradwell
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@gmarraff
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@recrtl
Copy link
Contributor

recrtl commented Aug 21, 2024

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@lucasoskorep
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for the quick responses everyone!

Responding to a few comments here:

fwiw, my experience with this suggests that the maintainer can change the license at will that will apply to the current state (HEAD) and all contributions thereafter. If the maintainer is a governing body (such as a foundation or steering committee) that body would need to vote to make the change.
If you're talking about retroactively changing the license (for the entire history of the project) the approach you're taking is likely correct.

To my knowledge, a license change to a more permissive model (which Apache-2.0 over Commons Clause + Apache-2.0 is) is something that all copyright holders would need agree to. Previous releases will still be under Commons Clause.

@lukiffer My understanding is that every "release" is provided under the then-active license. The upshot is that if the license is changed, consumers can continue to use old copies under the previous license - and since often those licenses allow for derivative works with minimal restrictions, forks to retain the old license are common.
This is a different case, and the difference is intimately tied to how licensing works. Regardless of the license, the right to choose how rights are granted to consumers of a work derives from the copyright - in effect, the creator of a work (usually) holds a legal right on how it's used. A license is a formal statement about that use.
So the trick here is not how the license will bind people, it's who has the right to decide what the license shall be? One argument: the Licensor: Egor Kovetskiy statement in the LICENSE file is an assertion of copyright by Egor, and all us contributors should've understood that when we issued PRs. (I'm fine with that reading, in general, personally.)
But, we might argue that we retain copyright over our contributions, and since there wasn't a clear statement one way or the other, it's a reasonable position to hold. Thus, this (I fear, quixotic) attempt to get agreement from everyone who's ever contributed to the project.
I've contributed to projects that required a GPG-signed "contributor covenant" before they'd accept PRs, to avoid situations like this. A CONTRIBUTING file that asserts something similar might also be useful. (essentially, add a paragraph to CONTRIBUTING that says something like "I transfer whatever copyright I have to my contributions to the project owner(s) by making a pull request")
Like a lot of OSS licensing stuff, most of this hasn't seen a legal test, so who knows what matters.

Asking all contributors to agree to a license change is the best option, because that allows contributors to raise concerns and make suggestions. We could fall back on the option that @kovetskiy is the Licensor, if needed. I would suggest doing that only after evaluating other options.

That being said, why the switch to a license with commercial use?

Common Clause is not Open Source software, which is why some distributions can't package it, see: #295

Really appreciate the clarifications!

@tillepille
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

3 similar comments
@GezimSejdiu
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@prokod
Copy link
Contributor

prokod commented Aug 21, 2024

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@MattyRad
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@teopost
Copy link
Contributor

teopost commented Aug 21, 2024 via email

@jcavar
Copy link
Contributor

jcavar commented Aug 22, 2024

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

3 similar comments
@Taldrain
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@wbh1
Copy link
Contributor

wbh1 commented Aug 22, 2024

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@malys
Copy link
Contributor

malys commented Aug 22, 2024

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@stephenpaulger
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0.

I think this is a good change for Mark too, more frequently used licenses are often easier for people to contribute to during their working time.

I'm also happy for copyright for my past commits to be assigned to the project or its owner(s).

@csoutherland
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@mrueg
Copy link
Collaborator

mrueg commented Aug 25, 2024

Thanks again for all the responses!

Trying to ping the folks who have not responded yet here. :)

@chrisjaimon2012
@datsickkunt
@dauc
@emead-indeed / @emead (I believe this is the non-work account)
@guoweis-work / @guoweis (same here)
@jay-stillman
@jevfok
@klysunkin
@mmiranda
@tyler-copilot
@vpommier

@guoweis-work
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

1 similar comment
@dauc
Copy link
Contributor

dauc commented Aug 26, 2024

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@klysunkin
Copy link
Contributor

klysunkin commented Aug 26, 2024 via email

@jevfok
Copy link
Contributor

jevfok commented Aug 26, 2024

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

3 similar comments
@vpommier
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@chrisjaimon2012
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@mmiranda
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0

@mrueg
Copy link
Collaborator

mrueg commented Aug 30, 2024 •
edited
Loading

From the contributors who haven't responded, I reviewed the changes they made.

Name Contributions Classification
@datsickkunt https://github.com/kovetskiy/mark/commits?author=datsickkunt Doc, 7 lines
@elgreco247 https://github.com/kovetskiy/mark/commits?author=elgreco247 Code, 4 lines
@emead-indeed https://github.com/kovetskiy/mark/commits?author=emead-indeed Code, 13 lines
@tyler-copilot https://github.com/kovetskiy/mark/commits?author=tyler-copilot Code, 9 lines

According to GNU, we can consider changes with less than 15 lines of code as not legally significant for copyright and thus the license change.

I encourage everyone mentioned to still respond and agree to the change.

I will proceed on September 6th 2024 with the PR, if there are no further responses.

@jay-stillman
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to change the license from Commons-Clause v1.0 to Apache-2.0 for all code committed towards Mark

@mrueg mrueg mentioned this pull request Sep 4, 2024
Merged
@mrueg
Copy link
Collaborator

mrueg commented Sep 6, 2024

Thanks to everyone for their contributions and for their quick support with the relicensing!

@mrueg mrueg merged commit 0e8ce18 into master Sep 6, 2024
5 checks passed
@mrueg mrueg mentioned this pull request Sep 9, 2024
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@mrueg mrueg Awaiting requested review from mrueg

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.