[annotator-dev] Proposal: License Simplification

[Jack Park]

Works for me!

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Benjamin Young <bigbluehat at hypothes.is>
wrote:

> 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/20150618/57b2a136/attachment-0004.html>