Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

LICENSE LGPL #160

Closed
zubairhamed opened this issue Feb 28, 2016 · 8 comments
Closed

LICENSE LGPL #160

zubairhamed opened this issue Feb 28, 2016 · 8 comments

Comments

@zubairhamed
Copy link

Hi,

I know this was mentioned in Issue #135 however a good reason for changing might be that EPL and ASF-based projects do not allow including LGPL libraries.

http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
https://eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php

Z

@tony
Copy link

tony commented Mar 4, 2016

Why pick a license more restrictive than golang and libyaml's C implementation?

The license isn't backwards compatible... You have to end up reinventing the wheel rewriting code under a portable license.

I recommend changing the license or contributing to a different project with a more permissive license. 2, 5, 10 years down the line, if you find your predicament isn't compatible with LGPL - you'll have no choice but to start over and write from scratch.

@tony
Copy link

tony commented Mar 5, 2016

As an update, I found an alternative, https://github.com/cloudfoundry-incubator/candiedyaml. docker/libcompose switch from this project to it in docker/libcompose#91.

@niemeyer
Copy link
Contributor

niemeyer commented Mar 5, 2016

That's quite ironic. That project is a rip-off from go-yaml.. I can see parts that which were clearly "inspired" by go-yaml. If you are worried about licenses, you are switching from someone that is trying to support you to someone that is copying logic unlicensed.

Go for it. :-)

@niemeyer niemeyer closed this as completed Mar 5, 2016
@niemeyer
Copy link
Contributor

After much internal debate, we've finally managed to get agreement to move the license towards the Apache License v2. Reopening until the license lands.

@niemeyer niemeyer reopened this May 16, 2016
@zubairhamed
Copy link
Author

good to hear. hey i would appreciate it if you also state, whenever you can, if there were any specific steps you took to relicense this. I'm just curious to know if there are any specifics to changing the licenses of a project (other than the obvious license file change).

@niemeyer
Copy link
Contributor

The main problem is being legally allowed to do so, which isn't something I can help you with in detail. As one point to observe, if you got contributions to your project without a license agreement that allows you to do that, you can't change the license without asking explicit permission to all of your contributors, because they implicitly licensed the work under that same license to you.

@hairyhenderson
Copy link

@niemeyer - good to hear the license is being changed! Are there any updates on the effort?

@niemeyer
Copy link
Contributor

Just committed the text on e4d366f, apologies for the delay.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants