[annotator-dev] Proposal: License Simplification

Thu Jun 18 18:35:30 UTC 2015

The Apache Software Foundation--if we make it that far--will require
"everyone" to sign that iCLA as part of the incubation process.

There's no reason for us to sign that now--as the ASF won't care 'cause
we're not in incubation yet.

We *could* sign that with a different entity attributed...but then we'd
have to sort out what entity...or set one up.

I'm glad you brought this up, Jack. :) It is an important thing to be clear
on.

I'd recommend at this point we stay the course we've set:
Getting all known contributors "signed off" via a GitHub issue for the
license change from "MIT or GPL" to the more clearly defined (and prepped
for the future) Apache License 2.0.

Sound OK? :)

One hurdle at a time, I guess. ^_^

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Jack Park <jackpark at topicquests.org> wrote:

> 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/b6931e99/attachment-0004.html>