aqemu
aqemu copied to clipboard
tobimensch
Changing the license to GPLv3
One of the things I wanted to do when this project was more active last time, was to change it from a GPLv2.0 only project to a GPLv3+ one.
I got approval by the original author Andrey Rijov to do so, and back then almost all code was either written by him or me, so the license change would have been relatively easy.
This was also a reason why I was hesistant to accept too many pull requests, because if I ever was to go through with the license change, each one of those pull requests would make it just a little bit harder to get approval from all the past contributors for a license change.
Why GPLv3+? Because, while GPLv2.0only is a proven license, that also works greatly for the Linux kernel, GPLv3+ might be able to better adjust to new issues, such as the headache and mine field of software patents, and the + part makes subsequent license changes all the easier, if needed. I'm not really sure if it's worth the hassle to change the license, but if we could get approval by all contributors, then why not, right?
Any opinions on this?
I'm specifically pinging all contributors to this repository, to ask if all of you are okay with this license change.
@xsgordon @kpengboy @rworkman @melvyn2 @godofgrunts @ilia-kats @fcolista @Chocimier
If we're stuck at GPLv2.0, it wouldn't be the end of the world either.
I agree to the GPLv3 relicensing. -melvyn2
On May 2, 2020, at 07:15, Tobi [email protected] wrote:
One of the things I wanted to do when this project was more active last time, was to change it from a GPLv2.0 only project to a GPLv3+ one.
I got approval by the original author Andrey Rijov to do so, and back then almost all code was either written by him or me, so the license change would have been relatively easy.
This was also a reason why I was hesistant to accept too many pull requests, because if I ever was to go through with the license change, each one of those pull requests would make it just a little bit harder to get approval from all the past contributors for a license change.
Why GPLv3+? Because, while GPLv2.0only is a proven license, that also works greatly for the Linux kernel, GPLv3+ might be able to better adjust to new issues, such as the headache and mine field of software patents, and the + part makes subsequent license changes all the easier, if needed. I'm not really sure if it's worth the hassle to change the license, but if we could get approval by all contributors, then why not, right?
Any opinions on this?
I'm specifically pinging all contributors to this repository, to ask if all of you are okay with this license change.
@xsgordon https://github.com/xsgordon @kpengboy https://github.com/kpengboy @rworkman https://github.com/rworkman @melvyn2 https://github.com/melvyn2 @godofgrunts https://github.com/godofgrunts @ilia-kats https://github.com/ilia-kats @fcolista https://github.com/fcolista @Chocimier https://github.com/Chocimier If we're stuck at GPLv2.0, it wouldn't be the end of the world either.
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/tobimensch/aqemu/issues/73, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACF3WJCMUE3THIW2WFQSXT3RPQTHZANCNFSM4MXWNP4A.
I am the original author of the program. I confirm, I am not against changing the license.
I agree to the GPLv3+ re-licensing of my contribution(s) to aqemu.
(For the record: all commits I have published at the time of this writing were authored at a time when I was not employed (the author date is correct and the commit date is misleading), therefore I hold copyright on those commits and can relicense them.)
I didn't contribute any code so I don't think you actually need my permission, but I don't mind moving to GPLv3+.
Hey @tobimensch will this project be re-licensed? Since all the contributers have agreed?
@tobimensch Are there any remaining blockers to implementing this?
@germanaizek FYI
@kpengboy, I've read license v2 vs v3 difference, I don't mind. However, I accidentally specified MIT license in my fork because I did not know current one. I'll fix it now.
@melvyn2 to confirm, would you be willing to also relicense under any later version of the GPL beyond v3?