[annotator-dev] Proposal: License Simplification

[Jack Park]

Apache foundation and others use a "license-like" contract which requires
that contributors certify that they own the rights to their contributions,
things like that.

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Randall Leeds <tilgovi at hypothes.is> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/annotator-dev/attachments/20150618/1e78f7e0/attachment-0004.html>