daroczig
relicense from AGPL to MIT
Although I thought (10+ years ago) that AGPL-3 effectively addressed the potential issue of SaaS companies taking advantage of open-source software without contributing back, the licensing terms seem to be confusing and interpreted differently by orgs and lawyers. Given the multiple requests from the past years I've received to relicense to a more permissive license, and my current belief that logger does not benefit from the restrictions of AGPL -- I am hereby starting the relicensing process to MIT.
To do so, I need approval from all copyright holders (past contributors):
- [x] @Polkas
- [x] @hadley
- [x] @philaris
- [ ] @amy17519
- [x] @deeenes
- [x] @MichaelChirico
- [x] @artemklevtsov
- [x] @stPhena
- [x] @earino
- [x] @averissimo
- [x] @jozefhajnala
- [x] @atheriel
- [x] @pawelru
- [x] @aaelony
- [ ] @terashim
- [x] @DanChaltiel
- [x] @burgikukac
- [x] @kpagacz
- [x] @tdeenes
I know this is painful and boring, but the relicensing can only happen if I get acceptance from everyone, so please kindly reply below stating:
I accept the change of logger's license to MIT.
Otherwise, please feel free to let me know your concerns, questions etc.
Thanks for your past contributions and your help in this process as well!
I accept the change of logger's license to MIT.
Thank you for this, I can attest that google has a by-strict-exception-only policy for AGPL third party code: https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy
I accept the change of logger's license to MIT.On Aug 4, 2024, at 15:29, Gergely Daróczi @.***> wrote: Although I thought (10+ years ago) that AGPL-3 effectively addressed the potential issue of SaaS companies taking advantage of open-source software without contributing back, the licensing terms seem to be confusing and interpreted differently by orgs and lawyers. Given the multiple requests from the past years I've received to relicense to a more permissive license, and my current belief that logger does not benefit from the restrictions of AGPL -- I am hereby starting the relicensing process to MIT. To do so, I need approval from all copyright holders (past contributors):
@Polkas @hadley @philaris @amy17519 @deeenes @MichaelChirico @artemklevtsov @stPhena @earino @averissimo @jozefhajnala @atheriel @pawelru @aaelony @terashim @DanChaltiel @burgikukac @kpagacz @tdeenes
I know this is painful and boring, but the relicensing can only happen if I get acceptance from everyone, so please kindly reply below stating:
I accept the change of logger's license to MIT.
Otherwise, please feel free to let me know your concerns, questions etc. Thanks for your past contributions and your help in this process as well!
—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
I accept the change of logger's license to MIT.
In the past I've cited the AGPL as a reason to avoid this package for corporate Shiny apps, so happy to see it change. R community norms are strongly in favour of folks contributing back regardless of license, too.
@daroczig thank you for your contributions, and I am happy to see you more in open source world now:)
I accept the change of logger's license to MIT.
I accept the change of logger's license to MIT.
On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 12:29 AM Gergely Daróczi @.***> wrote:
Although I thought (10+ years ago) that AGPL-3 effectively addressed the potential issue of SaaS companies taking advantage of open-source software without contributing back, the licensing terms seem to be confusing and interpreted differently by orgs and lawyers. Given the multiple requests from the past years I've received to relicense to a more permissive license, and my current belief that logger does not benefit from the restrictions of AGPL -- I am hereby starting the relicensing process to MIT.
To do so, I need approval from all copyright holders (past contributors https://github.com/daroczig/logger/graphs/contributors):
- @Polkas https://github.com/Polkas
- @hadley https://github.com/hadley
- @philaris https://github.com/philaris
- @amy17519 https://github.com/amy17519
- @deeenes https://github.com/deeenes
- @MichaelChirico https://github.com/MichaelChirico
- @artemklevtsov https://github.com/artemklevtsov
- @stPhena https://github.com/stPhena
- @earino https://github.com/earino
- @averissimo https://github.com/averissimo
- @jozefhajnala https://github.com/jozefhajnala
- @atheriel https://github.com/atheriel
- @pawelru https://github.com/pawelru
- @aaelony https://github.com/aaelony
- @terashim https://github.com/terashim
- @DanChaltiel https://github.com/DanChaltiel
- @burgikukac https://github.com/burgikukac
- @kpagacz https://github.com/kpagacz
- @tdeenes https://github.com/tdeenes
I know this is painful and boring, but the relicensing can only happen if I get acceptance from everyone, so please kindly reply below stating:
I accept the change of logger's license to MIT.
Otherwise, please feel free to let me know your concerns, questions etc.
Thanks for your past contributions and your help in this process as well!
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/daroczig/logger/issues/172, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFQTO3NLOZTKL3NFVA3SEFTZP2TNRAVCNFSM6AAAAABL7GK2J6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGQ2DOMZSGE3TMMQ . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
@amy17519 @earino @terashim could you please provide feedback on the above-mentioned license change?
I accept the change of logger's license to MIT!
On Sun, Aug 18, 2024, 9:55 PM Gergely Daróczi @.***> wrote:
@amy17519 https://github.com/amy17519 @earino https://github.com/earino @terashim https://github.com/terashim could you please provide feedback on the above-mentioned license change?
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/daroczig/logger/issues/172#issuecomment-2295372155, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAAZOWUQTPH24SSAQ4KXODZSD347AVCNFSM6AAAAABL7GK2J6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDEOJVGM3TEMJVGU . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
I am planning to release a new version on CRAN in the next week to fix an issue with the recent glue package version, so I hope we can resolve this thread before then :)
@amy17519 and @terashim, could you please kindly report back if you are OK with relicensing logger as per above? (edit: pinged on other channels as well to raise awareness)
I accept the change of logger's license to MIT. Sorry for the delay. Thanks @daroczig, always
It looks like @terashim's contribution was 8eb9a6635b98cf9141e6a2ae7abe6ecc6ba1d659, which will be largely replaced by #204.
Yeah, I came to the same conclusion that if we don't hear back in a reasonable time,
we can ~~drop~~revert that commit (basically formatter_glue_safe), and reimplement indepent from the original contribution .. but I hope to hear back 😊
Yay, thanks so much everyone for your support, and sorry to bother you all with this -- I highly appreciate your kind contributions and the recent help with the relicensing process :bow: :raised_hands:
We are all set here ... I'll push the related official changes soon.