[annotator-dev] Proposal: License Simplification

Thu Jun 18 18:38:46 UTC 2015

Awesomeness. ^_^

Randall, could you kick off that issue? I can write it up if need be--I'd
just like it to come from you or Nick (as the two with the most commits) if
possible.

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Jack Park <jackpark at topicquests.org> wrote:

> 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/20150618/26fb8b81/attachment-0004.html>