Giving musicbrainz-bot a proper license

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Giving musicbrainz-bot a proper license

Marti Raudsepp
Hi!

I am emailing all people who appear in the musicbrainz-bot git history.

The musicbrainz-bot project (with various forks on GitHub) currently
does not have any declared license. This means, for instance, that
technically I'm not allowed to fork, use or improve any of the code
that othes have developed.

Thus, I want us all to agree on a license and then add it to the repo
to make intentions clear.

I would propose two license choices, please cast your vote. If you
have any preferences or reservations, let me know. After arriving at a
consensus, I need everyone's separate agreements to actually put a
license on the code.

1. MIT license - simple, permissive "no rights reserved" license. I
don't think we really need copyleft for this project.
http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

2. GNU GPL with "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
any later version" clause
This is what MusicBrainz server itself uses. Strong copyleft.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

Regards,
Marti

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-devel
jw
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Giving musicbrainz-bot a proper license

jw
Hi Marti,

Lukáš Lalinský is the original author, so I think he should choose a
license for his version. At least I will choose the same license for
all my contributions.

Regards,
Johannes

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:28PM +0300, Marti Raudsepp wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I am emailing all people who appear in the musicbrainz-bot git history.
>
> The musicbrainz-bot project (with various forks on GitHub) currently
> does not have any declared license. This means, for instance, that
> technically I'm not allowed to fork, use or improve any of the code
> that othes have developed.
>
> Thus, I want us all to agree on a license and then add it to the repo
> to make intentions clear.
>
> I would propose two license choices, please cast your vote. If you
> have any preferences or reservations, let me know. After arriving at a
> consensus, I need everyone's separate agreements to actually put a
> license on the code.
>
> 1. MIT license - simple, permissive "no rights reserved" license. I
> don't think we really need copyleft for this project.
> http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
>
> 2. GNU GPL with "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
> any later version" clause
> This is what MusicBrainz server itself uses. Strong copyleft.
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
>
> Regards,
> Marti

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Giving musicbrainz-bot a proper license

Lukáš Lalinský
There is probably some code from Picard in there, which is GPL. All my new code can be considered MIT licensed.

Lukas



On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Johannes Weißl <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Marti,

Lukáš Lalinský is the original author, so I think he should choose a
license for his version. At least I will choose the same license for
all my contributions.

Regards,
Johannes

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:28PM +0300, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am emailing all people who appear in the musicbrainz-bot git history.
>
> The musicbrainz-bot project (with various forks on GitHub) currently
> does not have any declared license. This means, for instance, that
> technically I'm not allowed to fork, use or improve any of the code
> that othes have developed.
>
> Thus, I want us all to agree on a license and then add it to the repo
> to make intentions clear.
>
> I would propose two license choices, please cast your vote. If you
> have any preferences or reservations, let me know. After arriving at a
> consensus, I need everyone's separate agreements to actually put a
> license on the code.
>
> 1. MIT license - simple, permissive "no rights reserved" license. I
> don't think we really need copyleft for this project.
> http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
>
> 2. GNU GPL with "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
> any later version" clause
> This is what MusicBrainz server itself uses. Strong copyleft.
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
>
> Regards,
> Marti


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Giving musicbrainz-bot a proper license

Marti Raudsepp
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Lukáš Lalinský <[hidden email]> wrote:
> There is probably some code from Picard in there, which is GPL. All my new
> code can be considered MIT licensed.

Thanks. It sounds like you're inclined towards MIT, but this leaves
some questions. Is this Picard-derived code wholly your own or is
there a chance that it had contributions from other people? In the
second case I guess GPL is the only safe choice.

PS: I guess I forgot to introduce myself in the initial email. I'm
"intgr" [1] on MusicBrainz, I run "intgr_bot" [2] and I also wrote a
few scripts myself, available on GitHub [3]

[1] https://musicbrainz.org/user/intgr
[2] https://musicbrainz.org/user/intgr_bot
[3] https://github.com/intgr/musicbrainz-bot

Regards,
Marti

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-devel