Relicense under dual MIT/Apache-2.0 #93

emberian · 2016-01-08T23:21:35Z

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 rust-encoding 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.

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

kyledewey · 2016-01-08T23:34:23Z

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

cgaebel · 2016-01-08T23:44:58Z

I am okay with this if, and only if, lifthrasiir is.

metajack · 2016-01-09T00:28:21Z

Work for me.

michaelsproul · 2016-01-09T00:47:30Z

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

retep998 · 2016-01-09T01:15:54Z

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

nagisa · 2016-01-09T01:56:00Z

Provided the project ends up changing the license from MIT to the dual MIT/Apache-2.0, I agree to re-licence my past contributions to the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

aatxe · 2016-01-09T03:07:58Z

I am okay with this if, and only if, lifthrasiir is.

michaelsproul · 2016-01-09T03:11:19Z

I am okay with this if, and only if, lifthrasiir is.

Just a pedantic side note, but this means that if you're ok with it, then liftrasiir is 😛

(you ok <-> lifthrasiir ok) -> (you ok -> lifthrasiir ok)

Edit: Which is perfectly reasonable, I'm just being silly!

aatxe · 2016-01-09T03:17:58Z

Just a pedantic side note, but this means that if you're ok with it, then liftrasiir is

No, it doesn't. If you wrote "I am ok with this if lifthrasiir is," you would translate it as "lifthrasiir is okay -> I am okay." The same thing applies here. Even if that wasn't the case, iff is commutative.

Manishearth · 2016-01-09T04:08:18Z

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

lifthrasiir · 2016-01-09T04:17:17Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. I'll update entries for @aatxe and @cgaebel as well. (Is this not an issue for your script, @cmr?)

ghost · 2016-01-09T04:30:10Z

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

michaelsproul · 2016-01-09T05:26:17Z

@aatxe: Yeah you're right! It's more subtle than I thought.

Taking the original translation:

(me ok <-> lifthrasiir ok)

You can indeed get (me ok -> lifthrasiir ok), which sounds funny because it sounds like your decision determines lifthrasiir's, but that's misleading. What that deduction really says is that if we see your approval (me ok), then we know lifthrasiir must have given his approval, because that's the only case in which your approval is given. I'll shut up now...

canndrew · 2016-01-09T07:04:14Z

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

klutzy · 2016-01-09T07:39:04Z

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

mneumann · 2016-01-09T11:33:55Z

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

octplane · 2016-01-09T11:54:40Z

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

Gekkio · 2016-01-09T13:09:57Z

I consent

suhr · 2016-01-09T13:17:54Z

Sure, why not?
(my one commit contribution is old and micro though)

mbrubeck · 2016-01-09T17:46:50Z

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

emberian · 2016-01-09T18:01:34Z

@lifthrasiir yeah my scripts don't care.

dkhenry · 2016-01-09T19:45:10Z

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

steveklabnik · 2016-01-10T00:34:15Z

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

ktossell · 2016-01-10T01:17:22Z

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

drbawb · 2016-01-10T04:53:26Z

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

skade · 2016-01-10T12:07:50Z

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

dotdash · 2016-01-10T22:43:19Z

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

phungleson · 2016-01-10T23:57:49Z

No problem

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

aneeshusa · 2016-01-12T16:57:35Z

For some reason I wasn't able to check the checkbox myself, but I'm ok with relicensing my contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license.

lifthrasiir · 2016-01-22T05:19:17Z

Okay, so we are left with a handful number of remaining contributors. Ping: @SimonSapin @alexcrichton @filipegoncalves @CraZySacX @kmcallister @bkoropoff @jedisct1

Note: I personally and many others think that Encoding would be better with the relicensing but some others may not agree. Since the checkbox above is not tri-state ("unknown", "agree", "disagree"), please comment to this issue if you disagree. If that happens, we could then talk about what to do next.

SimonSapin · 2016-01-22T08:19:59Z

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

alexcrichton · 2016-01-22T17:18:16Z

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

pradyunsg · 2016-04-18T06:11:14Z

@jedisct1
@filipegoncalves
@CraZySacX
@kmcallister
@bkoropoff

Another mention to grab your attention.

hsivonen · 2016-07-10T13:25:34Z

@cmr Note that the UTF-8 decoder is based on MIT-only code by an author who doesn't show up in the commit log (Björn Höhrmann). Contacting him about relicensing under dual MIT/Apache License 2.0 has been on my mental todo list, but I haven't gotten around to it, yet. If you contact him, it would be helpful to document the result.

lifthrasiir · 2016-07-10T14:43:16Z

@hsivonen I have completely forgotten that! The current code bears little resemblance from the original code (I credited the original author only to signify the main idea, and the first incarnation was already significantly deviated in order to support traps), so it might actually make sense to remove the license there. Not sure what to do though.

hsivonen · 2016-08-14T18:01:14Z

@hoehrmann, what's your take on the last two comments about licensing of the UTF-8 state machine code?

hoehrmann · 2016-08-21T23:22:25Z

I would need a summary (per mail preferably) of the problem here. I take it one possible question is whether I would be willing to license my UTF-8 decoder code under MIT xor Apache2. That sounds possible, but I would have to read up on that first.

skade · 2016-08-22T08:16:36Z

@hoehrmann #93 (comment) is basically all there is about it.

I have some reasoning here why I didn't relicense my own code under a dual license, most notably that I want my name included in binary distributions and I don't see license compat issues.

skade/leveldb#18 (comment)

kmcallister · 2016-09-17T19:49:04Z

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

lifthrasiir self-assigned this Jan 9, 2016

hsivonen mentioned this issue Aug 8, 2016

Stop adding the old length to expected when reserving String space. #103

Merged

Relicense under dual MIT/Apache-2.0 #93

Relicense under dual MIT/Apache-2.0 #93

Comments

emberian commented Jan 8, 2016 • edited Loading

Why?

How?

Contributor checkoff

kyledewey commented Jan 8, 2016

cgaebel commented Jan 8, 2016

metajack commented Jan 9, 2016

michaelsproul commented Jan 9, 2016

retep998 commented Jan 9, 2016

nagisa commented Jan 9, 2016

aatxe commented Jan 9, 2016

michaelsproul commented Jan 9, 2016

aatxe commented Jan 9, 2016

Manishearth commented Jan 9, 2016

lifthrasiir commented Jan 9, 2016

ghost commented Jan 9, 2016

michaelsproul commented Jan 9, 2016

canndrew commented Jan 9, 2016

klutzy commented Jan 9, 2016

mneumann commented Jan 9, 2016

octplane commented Jan 9, 2016

Gekkio commented Jan 9, 2016

suhr commented Jan 9, 2016

mbrubeck commented Jan 9, 2016

emberian commented Jan 9, 2016

dkhenry commented Jan 9, 2016

steveklabnik commented Jan 10, 2016

ktossell commented Jan 10, 2016

drbawb commented Jan 10, 2016

skade commented Jan 10, 2016

dotdash commented Jan 10, 2016

phungleson commented Jan 10, 2016

aneeshusa commented Jan 12, 2016

lifthrasiir commented Jan 22, 2016

SimonSapin commented Jan 22, 2016

alexcrichton commented Jan 22, 2016

pradyunsg commented Apr 18, 2016

hsivonen commented Jul 10, 2016 • edited Loading

lifthrasiir commented Jul 10, 2016 • edited Loading

hsivonen commented Aug 14, 2016 • edited Loading

hoehrmann commented Aug 21, 2016

skade commented Aug 22, 2016

kmcallister commented Sep 17, 2016

emberian commented Jan 8, 2016 •

edited

Loading

hsivonen commented Jul 10, 2016 •

edited

Loading

lifthrasiir commented Jul 10, 2016 •

edited

Loading

hsivonen commented Aug 14, 2016 •

edited

Loading