Skip to content

PSA: Changing the License to MIT #397

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
z3t0 opened this issue Dec 12, 2016 · 15 comments
Closed

PSA: Changing the License to MIT #397

z3t0 opened this issue Dec 12, 2016 · 15 comments
Assignees
Labels
Keep Keep issue

Comments

@z3t0
Copy link
Collaborator

z3t0 commented Dec 12, 2016

Is anyone opposed to switching the license for all new versions of the library from LGPL to MIT? Just to be clear, all previous versions will remain LGPL.

Update

I thought it might be wise to just mention briefly why I would like to change the Licensing. Without getting into a holy war, I personally prefer permissive licenses and not restrictive ones. I respect that GPL advocates for software "freedom" but unfortunately that means different things to different people. To me GPL simply means a new set of restrictions whereas MIT allows you to practically do anything.

@z3t0 z3t0 added this to the Christmas Revamp! milestone Dec 12, 2016
@philipphenkel
Copy link
Contributor

I'm supporting the switch to MIT.

@z3t0
Copy link
Collaborator Author

z3t0 commented Dec 13, 2016

Just gonna tag any contributors for their opinion. I apologize in advance for any spam, just want to make sure no one is left it in case they want to voice their opiniont

@fpo @sEpt0r @vk2tds @X-Y @DaAwesomeP @cltnschlosser @crash7 @jan-r @madmalkav @audetto @bessl @lumbric @ram-0000 @safaorhan @hmeine @sstefanov @toddtreece @levsa @bengtmartensson @joshuajnoble @Informatic @ElectricRCAircraftGuy @PaoloP74 @Lauszus @henkel @ivankravets @MCUdude @chaeplin @AnalysIR @shirriff @csBlueChip

@bengtmartensson
Copy link
Contributor

Let @shirriff decide. Not only is he the original author, but there is still his "smell" over most of the work. If he wanted a copy-left license, that should be respected.

BTW, the way "libraries" in the Arduino IDE works, makes it unciear if there are libraries in the legal sense at all. Recall that an Arduino "library" is not an *.a or *.so or *.dll file, but rather a bunch of files the IDE is compiling together with the main program ("sketch"). I may be wrong. But if I am right, that would make library licenses a bad choice.

Personally, I am a proponent of "copy-left" licenses, with the option of dual licensing for the use in non-free contexts.

@csBlueChip
Copy link
Collaborator

csBlueChip commented Dec 13, 2016 via email

@shirriff
Copy link
Collaborator

Let @shirriff decide.

I support whatever licensing decision @z3t0 makes.

Not only is he the original author, but there is still his "smell" over most of the work.

Uh, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

@Lauszus
Copy link
Contributor

Lauszus commented Dec 13, 2016

I'm fine with the decision made by @z3t0 as well.

@Informatic
Copy link
Contributor

Informatic commented Dec 13, 2016 via email

@ElectricRCAircraftGuy
Copy link
Contributor

I'm fine with @z3t0's decision too. MIT can be used by a broader context of people.

@crash7
Copy link
Contributor

crash7 commented Dec 14, 2016

Support MIT too, @z3t0 👍

@PaulStoffregen
Copy link
Collaborator

I'm good with MIT

@rlaferla
Copy link

rlaferla commented Mar 7, 2017

+1 MIT

@z3t0
Copy link
Collaborator Author

z3t0 commented Mar 8, 2017

Just as an update. I still plan on moving to the new licence and the next major version of this library will be licenced under the MIT.

@z3t0 z3t0 self-assigned this Mar 26, 2017
@shirriff
Copy link
Collaborator

Also, you can remove the "Copyright Ken Shirriff" from the files that still have it.

@ArminJo
Copy link
Collaborator

ArminJo commented Oct 19, 2020

@z3t0 @bengtmartensson @shirriff @csBlueChip I changed the license with the commit above.
Please veryfy if anything is correct, especially the 3 first lines of the license.txt file. Maybe they can be deleted?
@shirriff I changed all you copyright notes and link to Initially coded 2009 Ken Shirriff http://www.righto.com, I hope, this is OK.

@csBlueChip
Copy link
Collaborator

csBlueChip commented Oct 21, 2020 via email

@ArminJo ArminJo added the Keep Keep issue label Dec 30, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Keep Keep issue
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests