Skip to content

Switch license to Rust license? #2885

Closed
@Manishearth

Description

@Manishearth
Member

Especially given that uplifts are happening, we should consider switching over to Rust's MIT/Apache v2 license. If we want we can keep MPL to have it triple licensed.

The process involved pinging everyone who has committed to the project and asking them for consent.

Thoughts?

cc @oli-obk @llogiq @mcarton @flip1995 @phansch @birkenfeld

Activity

oli-obk

oli-obk commented on Jun 30, 2018

@oli-obk
Contributor

Feels like the safest variant. I hope we can reach everyone. This has been done before, are there any scripts around that could be used?

mcarton

mcarton commented on Jun 30, 2018

@mcarton
Member

We have 204 contributors now, so it might get a little tricky. We don't need all of them to agree though, very small contributions (eg. typo fixing) aren't protected like that. But it's hard to choose between small contribution or not. Also, IANAL.
What we could at least do is switch the license for future commits. All contributions until now would stay on the single licence we have now, and all future contributions would be doubly licenced. This would at least cover most new lints.

Anyway, as I just happened to come here a few minutes after this was created, and I'm not as involved as before (and don't even have time to read the dozens of emails I get from GitHub everyday), I'd better speak now:

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

mcarton

mcarton commented on Jun 30, 2018

@mcarton
Member

Some time ago, there has been a wave of issues opened all over Rust projects' GitHub about licence changes with a generated list of all contributors. I've seen the template evolve over time. Any idea who did that?
(Also, why was Clippy spared?)

Manishearth

Manishearth commented on Jun 30, 2018

@Manishearth
MemberAuthor

cmr did that.

I think we can ask for everyone to sign off and then if some folks don't look at their contribs then.

CAD97

CAD97 commented on Jul 16, 2018

@CAD97
Contributor

When sorted by additions, the GitHub contributor list gets to #100 with 2++.

IANAL, but I'm thinking nobody will complain much if you manage to get all 100 of those contributors to OK a re-license.

emberian

emberian commented on Jul 24, 2018

@emberian
Member

https://github.com/cmr/relicense-assistant is everything I used to make that wave. Clippy was spared because I only targeted MIT xor Apache-2.0 projects. I wasn't interested in getting people to substantially change their license.

emberian

emberian commented on Jul 24, 2018

@emberian
Member

Note that for changing the license, you'll want to change the text of the agreement to something along the lines of:

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, and MPL-2.0, allowing licensees to chose any at their option.

This keeps the MPL-2.0 status quo until you can actually switch. Once you switch, in the readme/wherever you decide to document it, I wouldn't keep the bit about MPL-2.0.

benbrittain

benbrittain commented on Jul 24, 2018

@benbrittain

I and some other interested parties were talking about this earlier today actually. I think it would make the most sense to make this MIT/Apache-2.0 if it's in the "core" rust ecosystem now. Should the script open an issue or add to this Issue?

I am also strongly against triple licensing w/MPL, since that would invalidate my usecase.

Manishearth

Manishearth commented on Jul 24, 2018

@Manishearth
MemberAuthor
Manishearth

Manishearth commented on Aug 27, 2018

@Manishearth
MemberAuthor

Opened the relicensing issues, it's being coordinated at #3093

Going with simple dual licensing.

est31

est31 commented on Aug 27, 2018

@est31
Member

@Manishearth I suggest that you also add a note to the README to make any future contributions licensed under MIT/Apache 2.0. Otherwise, you'll be always playing catch-up with the new contributors that made a PR since you opened those issues.

Manishearth

Manishearth commented on Sep 13, 2018

@Manishearth
MemberAuthor

@est31 I don't think we can, because MPL isn't as compatible with the Rust license. Which means that folks would be contributing triple licensed code to an MPL codebase and I don't really want to deal with figuring out the legality of that. I guess a readme note works but it's not 100% clear.

I'd rather have them go through the same process, or explicitly note that they allow the work to be relciensed. I plan on asking on their PRs soon, once we're close to done with the historical bunch

added a commit that references this issue on Oct 5, 2018
97f5561
added 4 commits that reference this issue on Oct 5, 2018
f43007b
c3bfdfb
d3e8585
ca437e8
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

        Participants

        @benbrittain@oli-obk@emberian@Manishearth@mcarton

        Issue actions

          Switch license to Rust license? · Issue #2885 · rust-lang/rust-clippy