[annotator-dev] Proposal: License Simplification

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>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:54 PM Andrew Magliozzi <andrew at finalsclub.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Cheers!
> Benjamin
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/annotator-dev/attachments/20150618/97600080/attachment-0004.html>