Decide on project license

[johanbove]

The current copyright of this project looks like this:

jqPlot is currently available for use in all personal or commercial projects under both the MIT (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php) and GPL version 2.0 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html) licenses. This means that you can choose the license that best suits your project and use it accordingly.

I'm not much into legal topics, but wouldn't it be better if we kept just a single license instead offering this "choice" ? What's the point of this anyhow?

[ktw]

MIT should be fine.
https://exygy.com/which-license-should-i-use-mit-vs-apache-vs-gpl/
GPL would exclude some users.

[rswestmoreland]

I agree, MIT is the way to go to keep the project completely available to use however anyone sees fit.

…

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:22 AM Kim Trolle Wadum ***@***.***> wrote: MIT should be fine. https://exygy.com/which-license-should-i-use-mit-vs-apache-vs-gpl/ GPL would exclude some users. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#176 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJRFvFIgbodK37lOZBtQY1KPIKSZUc5Aks5ufiKMgaJpZM4W9jwY> .

[toolstack]

Dual licencing isn't a bad thing and changing it now is more problematic as you would have to go to each contributor and get permission to change the licence terms. Each contributor still holds the copyright on the code they submitted.

[rswestmoreland]

Wouldn't it be fine to change the license on a major version change? So all releases up to that version are dual, then the new version is just MIT.

…

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:03 PM Greg Ross ***@***.***> wrote: Dual licencing isn't a bad thing and changing it now is more problematic as you would have to go to each contributor and get permission to change the licence terms. Each contributor still holds the copyright on the code they submitted. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#176 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJRFvF6vJF7IaKqqfDG3YPyfWn13IWriks5ufkhIgaJpZM4W9jwY> .

[toolstack]

No, that's not how licencing works, since the contributors submitted the code with a dual licence, to change it you would still have to get permission from each individual contributor, irregardless of if it's a minor or major release.

Wouldn't it be fine to change the license on a major version change? So all releases up to that version are dual, then the new version is just MIT.

Dual licencing isn't a bad thing and changing it now is more problematic as you would have to go to each contributor and get permission to change the licence terms. Each contributor still holds the copyright on the code they submitted.

[johanbove]

As @toolstack pointed out correctly, we'll need to consult with all contributors. But that shouldn't be too hard as there aren't that many people involved (yet).

Also picking a single license will make jqPlot easier to be found on GitHub through "search by licence"; see also https://help.github.com/articles/licensing-a-repository/

I found a good resource, by GitHub, on what changing a license in open source projects entails; see https://opensource.guide/legal/#what-if-i-want-to-change-the-license-of-my-project

This project has at the moment 34 Contributors from 2009 until now.

Asking all contributors if they agree that we switch jqPlot to MIT license which is easier for everyone and it allows using jqPlot in closed source projects. (cf. https://choosealicense.com/);

Please add your comment, objection, reaction to this thread if you agree or disagree.

Contributors with more than one commit:

@cleonello
@ppritcha
@akuchling
@johanbove
@harbulot
@KTW-NIRAS
@spoonguard2k
@jeschr
@tomascassidy
@harryzhux
@DaltonNotetech
@audriusk
@svenjacobs

Contributors with 1 commit:

@dwhipps
@jasonex7
@Coeur
@clancelotti
@walterbrebels
@BradPenwarden
@gkjothi20
@psaliente
@toolstack
@pc-m
@simonschaufi
@y2chen
@Amomo
@FO-nTTaX
@piyushsaini123
@veger
@dg-spark
@hkirk
@BBBThunda
@pchop2
@arthurlogilab

@JordiCorbilla

Thank you all!

[simonschaufi]

I'm fine with a change.

[ktw]

KTW-NIRAS is my work account, so fine with me.

[svenjacobs]

I'm fine with the MIT license, too.

[psaliente]

I'm also okay with the change.

…

On Sat, Sep 29, 2018, 5:34 PM Sven Jacobs, ***@***.***> wrote: I'm fine with the MIT license, too. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#176 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AMM6K7cdaHCVmRY8sHd1SJzBRLJK_P4tks5ufz62gaJpZM4W9jwY> .

[JordiCorbilla]

I agree too!

[pc-m]

MIT is fine for me.

[harbulot]

I'm fine with the MIT license.

(That said, I'm not entirely sure it's worth the trouble. Once it's MIT-only, it could cause problems for people who use it as GPL-only. I'm not sure how to assess the legal arguments of the answers to this question on StackExchange, but it raises some interesting points.)

[audriusk]

I'm OK with the change to MIT-only license.

[FO-nTTaX]

MIT is fine with me, I only fixed some typos anyways.

[dwhipps]

Yup. Fine.

[toolstack]

I'm fine with MIT.

[akuchling]

I am also fine with the change to MIT, though I don't see the necessity of dropping the GPL.

[Coeur]

I grant all permissions on my contributions 🐨 for any licence change.

[veger]

Changing license is fine by me

[walterbrebels]

I grant all permissions for any licence change. Op zo 30 sep. 2018 om 09:57 schreef Maarten Bezemer < notifications@github.com>:

…

Changing license is fine by me — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#176 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABOXaky-8ISDGkDLpXARFc4BjatHUjCTks5ugHlzgaJpZM4W9jwY> .

[y2chen]

MIT is fine.

[DaltonNotetech]

MIT licence will be fine.
I think, GPL forces the release of source code, which most commercial projects wont like.

[piyushsaini123]

I am fine with MIT license.

…

On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 2:04 PM Johan Bové ***@***.***> wrote: As @toolstack <https://github.com/toolstack> pointed out correctly, we'll need to consult with all contributors. But that shouldn't be too hard as there aren't that many people involved (yet). Also picking a single license will make jqPlot easier to be found on GitHub through "search by licence <https://help.github.com/articles/searching-for-repositories/#search-by-license>"; see also https://help.github.com/articles/licensing-a-repository/ I found a good resource, by GitHub, on what changing a license in open source projects entails; see https://opensource.guide/legal/#what-if-i-want-to-change-the-license-of-my-project This project has at the moment 34 Contributors from 2009 until now. Asking all contributors if they agree that we *switch jqPlot to MIT license* which is easier for everyone and it allows using jqPlot in closed source projects. (cf. https://choosealicense.com/); *Please add your comment, objection, reaction to this thread if you agree or disagree.* Contributors with more than one commit: @cleonello <https://github.com/cleonello> @ppritcha <https://github.com/ppritcha> @akuchling <https://github.com/akuchling> @johanbove <https://github.com/johanbove> @harbulot <https://github.com/harbulot> @KTW-NIRAS <https://github.com/KTW-NIRAS> @spoonguard2k <https://github.com/spoonguard2k> @jeschr <https://github.com/jeschr> @tomascassidy <https://github.com/tomascassidy> @harryzhux <https://github.com/harryzhux> @DaltonNotetech <https://github.com/DaltonNotetech> @audriusk <https://github.com/audriusk> @svenjacobs <https://github.com/svenjacobs> Contributors with 1 commit: @dwhipps <https://github.com/dwhipps> @jasonex7 <https://github.com/jasonex7> @Coeur <https://github.com/Coeur> @clancelotti <https://github.com/clancelotti> @walterbrebels <https://github.com/walterbrebels> @BradPenwarden <https://github.com/BradPenwarden> @gkjothi20 <https://github.com/gkjothi20> @psaliente <https://github.com/psaliente> @toolstack <https://github.com/toolstack> @pc-m <https://github.com/pc-m> @simonschaufi <https://github.com/simonschaufi> @y2chen <https://github.com/y2chen> @Amomo <https://github.com/Amomo> @FO-nTTaX <https://github.com/FO-nTTaX> @piyushsaini123 <https://github.com/piyushsaini123> @veger <https://github.com/veger> @dg-spark <https://github.com/dg-spark> @hkirk <https://github.com/hkirk> @BBBThunda <https://github.com/BBBThunda> @pchop2 <https://github.com/pchop2> @arthurlogilab <https://github.com/arthurlogilab> Thank you all! — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#176 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AO7UMNvxpE8yvCW8y-NlgH3m-ZCNUhRDks5ufzChgaJpZM4W9jwY> .

[jasonex7]

I agree with the MIT license

[wwuck]

License change is OK with me

[harryzhux]

I agree using the MIT license.

…

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018, 6:54 PM tomascassidy ***@***.***> wrote: License change is OK with me — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#176 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AKaALX8r8A80FNDq8Ba0LZhZf7wQoHh3ks5ugsc4gaJpZM4W9jwY> .

[arthurzenika]

OK for me too

[dg-hub]

I grant all permissions for any licence change.

[BBBThunda]

If you're still looking for feedback I have no objections to changing the license.

[johanbove]

Thanks to all of you who gave their response to this - long running - poll.

The results as of today are:

Vote	Count
😃	35
👍	24
👎	0
❓	11

Contributors with more than one commit:

@cleonello ❓
@ppritcha ❓
@akuchling 👍
@johanbove 👍
@harbulot 👍
@KTW-NIRAS 👍
@spoonguard2k 👍
@jeschr ❓
@tomascassidy 👍
@harryzhux 👍
@DaltonNotetech 👍
@audriusk 👍
@svenjacobs 👍

Contributors with 1 commit:

@dwhipps 👍
@jasonex7 👍
@Coeur 👍
@clancelotti ❓
@walterbrebels ❓
@BradPenwarden ❓
@gkjothi20 ❓
@psaliente 👍
@toolstack 👍
@pc-m 👍
@simonschaufi 👍
@y2chen 👍
@Amomo ❓
@FO-nTTaX 👍
@piyushsaini123 👍
@veger 👍
@dg-spark ❓
@hkirk ❓
@BBBThunda 👍
@pchop2 ❓
@arthurlogilab 👍

@JordiCorbilla 👍