[annotator-dev] Proposal: License Simplification
tilgovi at hypothes.is
Thu Jun 18 16:25:41 UTC 2015
That sounds like a plan. Given that we haven't heard negative reactions
from the community here, we are simply discussing permission from authors.
I'd say let's open the issue.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015, 06:53 Benjamin Young <bigbluehat at hypothes.is> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Randall Leeds <tilgovi at hypothes.is>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:54 PM Andrew Magliozzi <andrew at finalsclub.org>
>>> 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.
>> Thanks, Andrew.
> Yeah, much thanks, Drew! I didn't want to be the only one banging this
> drum. ;)
>>> 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'm a strong +1 on switching the license. I will note that we should be
>> careful about "the more your opinion matters". While people near the top
>> may be influential in the project community, ultimately we cannot relicense
>> the work of other people without their permission.
> I think "getting permission" to relicense is probably what we should focus
> the conversation on.
> One way to come at this is to post a GitHub issue which mentions each of
> these people and asks, simply (+ some explanatory ephemera):
> - Are you OK re-licensing your contributions to Annotator under the
> Apache License 2.0?
> My guess is most folks won't actually care. If there is debate, we can
> move it back to the mailing list per-issue raised.
> The goal being that we get a reference-able record of +1's from each of
> these folks--or know who we haven't heard from.
> We could try and do this over email, but the location would be less
> "permanent" and harder to follow / track / reference later.
> FWIW, this is how Twitter did it when they changed the Bootstrap license
> prior to 3.0 shipping. It worked well enough (I'd forgotten I'd even had
> patches in Bootstrap :-P), and didn't seem to take terribly long.
> Sound like a plan?
> I'm happy to start the issue, but since I'm not a project owner it might
> look odd / less official.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the annotator-dev