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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Re-licensing covr as MIT #454

Closed
20 tasks done
hadley opened this issue Oct 30, 2020 · 38 comments · Fixed by #498
Closed
20 tasks done

Re-licensing covr as MIT #454

hadley opened this issue Oct 30, 2020 · 38 comments · Fixed by #498

Comments

@hadley
Copy link
Member

hadley commented Oct 30, 2020 •
edited by krlmlr
Loading

We are systematically re-licensing tidyverse and r-lib packages to use the MIT license, to make our package licenses as clear and permissive as possible. To do so, we need the approval of all copyright holders, which I have found by reviewing contributions from all all non-RStudio contributors. @brodieG, @chen-liang-oracle, @chinqw, @daattali, @daroczig, @Delfic, @enbrown, @helske, @HenrikBengtsson, @hughjonesd, @jameslamb, @JohnMount, @jonclayden, @jpritikin, @karl-forner-quartz-bio, @katrinleinweber, @kenahoo, @kforner, @kirillseva, @kiwiroy, @maodunzhe, @MichaelChirico, @MishaCivey, @nibant, @patperry, @renkun-ken, @rmflight, @robertzk, @RolandASc, @siddharthab, @stevepeak, @surmann, @wamserma, @wligtenberg, would you permit us to re-license covr with the MIT license? If so, please comment "I agree" below.

(You may recall that we've been through this process once before in #256. We now understand the licensing landscape much better and are moving to make our policies consistent across the tidyverse)
@rmflight
Copy link
Contributor

I agree

@kforner
Copy link
Contributor

kforner commented Oct 30, 2020 via email

@helske
Copy link
Contributor

helske commented Oct 30, 2020

I agree

@nibant
Copy link
Contributor

nibant commented Oct 30, 2020 via email

@daroczig
Copy link
Contributor

I agree

@renkun-ken
Copy link
Contributor

I agreee

@MichaelChirico
Copy link
Contributor

MichaelChirico commented Oct 30, 2020 via email

@jonclayden
Copy link
Contributor

I agree

2 similar comments
@patperry
Copy link
Contributor

I agree

@wligtenberg
Copy link
Contributor

I agree

@JohnMount
Copy link
Contributor

I give permission. But I think GPL 2/3 remain the correct licenses for the R community.

@daattali
Copy link
Contributor

I agree

@brodieG
Copy link
Contributor

brodieG commented Oct 30, 2020

I also think GPL is the better license for the R community, but given my contributions are minor I agree.

For those interested in more discussion please see: tidyverse/ggplot2#4236

@RolandASc
Copy link
Contributor

I agree

1 similar comment
@Delfic
Copy link
Contributor

Delfic commented Oct 30, 2020

I agree

@robertzk
Copy link
Contributor

I agree.

@kirillseva
Copy link
Contributor

I agree

2 similar comments
@jameslamb
Copy link
Contributor

I agree

@kenahoo
Copy link
Contributor

kenahoo commented Oct 30, 2020

I agree

@kiwiroy
Copy link
Contributor

kiwiroy commented Oct 30, 2020

I agree.

@kenahoo
Copy link
Contributor

kenahoo commented Oct 30, 2020

Administrivia: my name is left out in the checklist, but present in the paragraph.

@daroczig
Copy link
Contributor

Administrivia: my name is left out in the checklist, but present in the paragraph.

Same here - and for a few other folks as well.

@siddharthab
Copy link
Contributor

I agree.

1 similar comment
@wamserma
Copy link
Contributor

I agree.

@hadley
Copy link
Member Author

hadley commented Oct 30, 2020 •
edited
Loading

@kenahoo @daroczig oops, I forgot to remove you from that list — technically you don't need to agree because you contributed back when covr was MIT licensed in the first place.

@hughjonesd
Copy link
Contributor

I agree

@maodunzhe
Copy link
Contributor

maodunzhe commented Nov 1, 2020 via email

@batpigandme
Copy link
Contributor

Hi, @chen-liang-oracle, @chinqw, @jpritikin, @katrinleinweber, @MishaCivey, and @surmann,
We'd love to get your agreement please, if you could take a look when you have a chance. 🙂
Thanks!

@HenrikBengtsson
Copy link
Contributor

Hi, sorry I still haven't had time to get to any of these requests (I got lots of them). I don't object to changes as long as the main maintainer and the original author(s) are ok with it. But I'd like to take the opportunity to ask for some clarifications, and I don't know another place to ask than here:

Q1. Who are "we" in: "We are systematically re-licensing tidyverse and r-lib packages to use the MIT license, to make our package licenses as clear and permissive as possible. ..."? Is that RStudio, or something or somebody else?

Q2. Related to the above, and maybe this is already explained somewhere that I'm not aware of. How is the 'r-lib' organization/group/entity (https://github.com/r-lib/) related to RStudio (https://github.com/rstudio)? Is 'r-lib' some type of entity with some ownership or just an online location to share code?

Regarding the move of 'covr' back to the MIT license. I recall the MIT -> GPL3 transition that was "forced" upon 'covr' (#256). Is that no longer an issue?

@hadley
Copy link
Member Author

hadley commented Nov 19, 2020

Q1. We is mostly me, Hadley (in conjunction with discussions with my team and other folks (e.g. JJ) within RStudio).

Q2. r-lib is roughly equivalent to tidyverse but for packages that provide low level infrastructure (processx, gert, pillar, ...) or support package development (roxygen2, devtools, ...). Most of the maintainers are RStudio employees (mostly on my team). There are a few repos that are owned by others, but live in r-lib to indicate that my team would take over maintenance if the original creator is no longer interested

Q3. It was forced mostly because we didn't understand licensing as well then as we do now.

@HenrikBengtsson
Copy link
Contributor

I agree

@maodunzhe
Copy link
Contributor

maodunzhe commented Nov 20, 2020 via email

@katrinleinweber
Copy link
Contributor

I agreed. Thank you for moving to MIT :-)

@hadley
Copy link
Member Author

hadley commented Apr 12, 2021

@jpritikin agreed over email.

@enbrown
Copy link
Contributor

enbrown commented Apr 12, 2021

I don't see my name in the checklist above (but was cc'd), but if its necessary, I agree.

@stevepeak
Copy link
Contributor

I agree

@surmann
Copy link
Contributor

surmann commented Nov 21, 2021

I agree.

batpigandme added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 19, 2022
@batpigandme
Re-license as MIT
b953098 
* Closes #454
@batpigandme batpigandme mentioned this issue Jan 19, 2022
Merged
@robertzk
Copy link
Contributor

robertzk commented Feb 2, 2022 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Re-license as MIT r-lib/covr