Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 8, 2021. It is now read-only.

Agreement to license change (from LGPL to MIT) #20

Closed
GuillaumeGomez opened this issue Apr 2, 2015 · 15 comments
Closed

Agreement to license change (from LGPL to MIT) #20

GuillaumeGomez opened this issue Apr 2, 2015 · 15 comments

Comments

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

For the moment, here are the contributors who agreed to the change of license:

GuillaumeGomez referenced this issue in jeremyletang/rgtk Apr 2, 2015
@gkoz
Copy link
Member

gkoz commented Apr 2, 2015

I'll reconfirm it here for the record.
I agree with re-licensing my contribution(s) under an MIT license.

@bpbp-boop
Copy link
Contributor

I give permission for all my work on rgtk to be re-licensed under an MIT license.

@dndanik
Copy link
Contributor

dndanik commented Apr 2, 2015

I give my permission.

@Blei
Copy link
Contributor

Blei commented Apr 2, 2015

I agree with re-licensing my contribution(s) under an MIT license.

@jgillich
Copy link
Contributor

jgillich commented Apr 2, 2015

I agree with re-licensing my contribution(s) under an MIT license.

Just because I'm curious, what are the reasons for this change? GTK+ is LGPL licensed, I think you still have to conform to its terms even if the bindings are MIT. But IANAL.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

@jgillich: Mostly for the reasons given here.

@gkoz
Copy link
Member

gkoz commented Apr 2, 2015

Just because I'm curious, what are the reasons for this change? GTK+ is LGPL licensed, I think you still have to conform to its terms even if the bindings are MIT.

We're only using the information from GTK's header files so this work isn't supposed to be infected by [L]GPL. We likely still are required to put the text of those licences into the repo and some notices.

@ptersilie
Copy link
Contributor

MIT sounds good to me. Permission granted of course.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

@ptersilie: thanks !

@gkoz
Copy link
Member

gkoz commented Apr 9, 2015

It seems we're missing permission from @mathijshenquet

@mathijshenquet
Copy link
Contributor

I agree to this change, and any other future changes the rgtk team would
like to make to the license.

Sorry for the late response

On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 17:27 Gleb Kozyrev [email protected] wrote:

It seems we're missing permission from @mathijshenquet
https://github.com/mathijshenquet


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#20 (comment).

@gkoz
Copy link
Member

gkoz commented Apr 9, 2015

Thank you, @mathijshenquet, this is a relief. :)

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

@mathijshenquet: it's been a while ! Hope you're doing fine. Thanks for your agreement !

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member Author

Since everyone concerned by the change of license has given his agreement, we can close this issue. If I'm wrong, don't hesitate to notify me !

@JohnMH
Copy link

JohnMH commented Mar 20, 2017

"infected by GPL"

Right. Okay.

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

No branches or pull requests

9 participants