[annotator-dev] Proposal: License Simplification

Wed Jun 17 23:54:39 UTC 2015

Hey All,

This license simplification proposal has dropped off a little, and I wanted
to bring it back up.  It's going to be important, particularly if we decide
to pursue the Apache Foundation Incubator program.

Below is a list of all Annotator contributors (according to GitHub).  If
you see your handle on that list, please try to chime in on this topic.
Note: the closer you are to the top, the more your opinion matters!

I can't wait to see what's next for this project and community.

Many thanks,
Drew Magliozzi

   -
   - nickstenning
   - aron
   - tilgovi
   - csillag
   - krues8dr
   - edsu
   - gergely-ujvari
   - sa2ajj
   - BigBlueHat
   - wjt
   - scharf
   - abrookins
   - danielcebrian
   - zephod
   - jamiefolsom
   - waffle-with-pears
   - gbone24
   - tgxworld
   - 6a68
   - AndrewMagliozzi
   - voidfiles
   - rlskoeser
   - rgrp
   - donohoe
   - goofy-bz
   - deds
   - shaunagm
   - iapain
   - b-long
   - bwbohl
   - hekevintran
   - fara
   - bgando
   - mattflaschen
   - ctnitchie

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Andrew - FinalsClub <andrew at finalsclub.org>
wrote:

> @Benjamin, thanks for proposing this in the meeting and on the list. A
> single license is a great idea!
>
> I don't think we can go wrong with either license but the Apache incubator
> option is definitely a big plus.
>
> I'm eager to hear what others think.
>
> Warmly,
> Drew
>
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Benjamin Young <bigbluehat at hypothes.is>
> wrote:
> >
> > Last fall I posted an issue to GitHub on this topic:
> > https://github.com/openannotation/annotator/issues/395
> >
> > The conclusion was that this was better discussed on the Mailing List,
> > so here we go. :)
> >
> > Currently Annotator uses an "either or" licensing scheme (as jQuery
> > did pre-2012 [1]).
> >
> > I'd like to propose that we simplify this down to either the MIT or
> > the Apache 2.0 license.
> >
> > Two key things would need to happen to make this a reality:
> > - pick the new license
> > - get the consent of all contributors
> > - state who the copyright holder is--either in the form of "The
> > Annotator Contributors" or assign it to a foundation, single person,
> > or entity.
> >
> > We can use the AUTHORS file and git history to find all the
> > contributors. I'm happy to do the "grunt" work to make this happen. I
> > was part of a similar process for the Twitter Bootstrap community
> > which involved everyone giving consent to the license change in a
> > GitHub issue.
> >
> > Having a clear license and a stated "owner" (even if it's "all of us")
> > makes things much easier for folks wanting to use Annotator in larger
> > projects such as enterprise software--which could also provide
> > additional contributors, etc.
> >
> > Without clear licensing and ownership using Annotator in a larger work
> > can be seen (by lawyers mostly) as a risky thing. Removing that FUD
> > makes it an easier/faster choice--which means developers can get back
> > to developing. :)
> >
> > Lastly, I'd personally love to see Annotator choose the Apache 2.0
> > license for the additional things it provides over the MIT.
> > MIT - http://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/
> > Apache - http://choosealicense.com/licenses/apache-2.0/
> >
> > Quick comparison (of those pretty, but non-binding bullet points)
> > shows that Apache adds:
> > - the need to state changes
> > - a patent grant (which is why enterprise likes it so much...but
> > getting the grant is good for everyone)
> > - prevents name confusion by preventing the use of the trademark
> >   -- Annotator is not yet a trademark (afaik), but it would provide
> > the opportunity for it to be...which could be helpful.
> >
> > Here's a screenshot of the two lists:
> > http://cl.ly/image/3e003U3c1T3X
> >
> > Lastly, switching to the Apache license opens the door for becoming
> > part of the Apache Software Foundation--through the incubation
> > process--where Annotator would sit along side some larger projects
> > such as Hadoop and CouchDB, but also be able to cozy-up to various
> > content management and natural language processing systems under that
> > same banner--again, another great opportunity to get Annotator into
> > more hands. I'll save proposing that (and it's process) for another
> > mail. ;)
> >
> > So...in conclusion:
> > 1. do we think narrowing to a single license is a Good Thing?
> > 2. if so, which license?
> >
> > I'm here to help make this happen, but I won't do anything until I
> > know it's what the group wants. :)
> >
> > Love,
> > Benjamin ;)
> > --
> > Developer Advocate
> > http://hypothes.is/
> > http://bigbluehat.com/
> >
> > [1] http://blog.jquery.com/2012/09/10/jquery-licensing-changes/
> > _______________________________________________
> > annotator-dev mailing list
> > annotator-dev at lists.okfn.org
> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/annotator-dev
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/annotator-dev
>

-- 
Andrew Magliozzi
Founder
*FinalsClub Foundation*
*www.KarmaNotes.org <http://www.KarmaNotes.org>*

T - 617-575-9369
E - Andrew at FinalsClub.org

FinalsClub exists thanks to funding from the William and Flora Hewlett
Foundation and generous scholars like you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/annotator-dev/attachments/20150617/3d98200c/attachment-0003.html>