[annotator-dev] Proposal: License Simplification

[Jack Park]

Good points.
I strongly believe that Apache 2 is the right license.
I simply injected "noise" to indicate there are other issues in this same
space.

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Randall Leeds <tilgovi at hypothes.is> wrote:

> So just to be sure, you're saying "this is another reason why the Apache
> license is good" and you support the change?
>
> I ask because your message was in reply to mine about asking permission
> from all contributors to change to Apache, so I was trying to understand
> whether your pointing out that clause had any bearing on that.
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015, 10:40 Jack Park <jackpark at topicquests.org> wrote:
>
>> https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>>
>> I think that the form speaks for itself. Apache foundation uses legal
>> help to keep its affairs in order; I believe it to be sound practice when
>> external contributors (nor employees of the firm) make contributions to the
>> codebase.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Randall Leeds <tilgovi at hypothes.is>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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/c7af8d93/attachment-0004.html>