[annotator-dev] Proposal: License Simplification

Thu Jun 18 17:10:12 UTC 2015

As I understand that piece, it only applies to the permission seeking (in
the negative) insofar as we have any doubts about the originality of
authors' contributions and therefore their ability to consent to the change.

Unless we have some suspicion about the origin of code currently in the
project (I haven't had or seen any) then this is just another benefit of
switching (n

I only write this to be sure I understand why you're bringing it up.

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015, 09:54 Jack Park <jackpark at topicquests.org> wrote:

> 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/20150618/1779ad3b/attachment-0004.html>