Re-licensing usethis (1/2)

[hadley]

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. @davidchall, @dchiu911, @dpprdan, @EmilHvitfeldt, @fmichonneau, @friep, @gadenbuie, @GegznaV, @Geoff99, @haozhu233, @hmalmedal, @ijlyttle, @jayhesselberth, @jdblischak, @jmgirard, @jonthegeek, @jules32, @karaesmen, @khailper, @kiernann, @KOSHKE, @lbusett, @llrs, @lorenzwalthert, @maelle, @malcolmbarrett, @Maschette, @maurolepore, @MichaelChirico, @mitchelloharawild, @muschellij2, @ncarchedi, @njtierney, @noamross, @overmar, @pachamaltese, @pat-s, @riccardoporreca, @rmflight, @rorynolan, @rundel, @ryapric, @salim-b, @smwindecker, @statwonk, @strboul, @stufield, @uribo, @VincentGuyader, @yoni, would you permit us to re-license usethis with the MIT license? If so, please comment "I agree" below.

• @davidchall
• @dchiu911
• @dpprdan
• @EmilHvitfeldt
• @fmichonneau
• @friep
• @gadenbuie
• @GegznaV
• @Geoff99
• @haozhu233
• @hmalmedal
• @ijlyttle
• @jayhesselberth
• @jdblischak
• @jmgirard
• @jonthegeek
• @jules32
• @karaesmen
• @khailper
• @kiernann
• @koshke
• @lbusett
• @llrs
• @lorenzwalthert
• @maelle
• @malcolmbarrett
• @Maschette
• @maurolepore
• @MichaelChirico
• @mitchelloharawild
• @muschellij2
• @ncarchedi
• @njtierney
• @noamross
• @overmar
• @pachamaltese
• @pat-s
• @riccardoporreca
• @rmflight
• @rorynolan
• @rundel
• @ryapric
• @salim-b
• @smwindecker
• @statwonk
• @strboul
• @stufield
• @uribo
• @VincentGuyader
• @yoni

[haozhu233]

I agree

[lorenzwalthert]

I agree.

[fmichonneau]

I agree

[rundel]

I agree

[hmalmedal]

I agree

[malcolmbarrett]

I agree

[MichaelChirico]

I agree

…

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 12:38 PM Malcolm Barrett ***@***.***> wrote: I agree — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1252 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB2BA5PKG334RRDVAETIA63SLBZI3ANCNFSM4STR2DAA> .

[maurolepore]

I agree

[EmilHvitfeldt]

I agree

[k5cents]

I agree

[jonthegeek]

I agree.

[jules32]

I agree

…

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 9:45 AM Kiernan Nicholls ***@***.***> wrote: I agree — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1252 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABM6ORIJ6ZJ3JB4K6SSKV7LSLB2BXANCNFSM4STR2DAA> .

-- Julia Stewart Lowndes, PhD Senior Fellow and Openscapes Director National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS <https://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/>) University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) Openscapes <https://openscapes.org> • Ocean Health Index <http://ohi-science.org/> • Mozilla Fellow website <http://jules32.github.io/> • github <https://github.com/jules32> • twitter <https://twitter.com/juliesquid>

[gadenbuie]

I agree

[salim-b]

to use the MIT license, to make our package licenses as clear and permissive as possible

The only additional freedom a so called "permissive" license provides compared to a copyleft license like GPL is the freedom to not cooperate, i.e. to act in your own interest instead of a common interest. I would therefore consider it as a typical "neoliberal" freedom, i.e. one whose use always puts someone else in a worse position and can therefore never be pareto-efficient.

---

But anyway, I'm in no position to decide about the licensing of this package since my contributions are marginal. Therefore I agree.

[pachadotdev]

I agree with repairs. I prefer to have a restriction such as "share your contributions and improvements with the community".

[rmflight]

I agree.

[salim-b]

I prefer to have a restriction such as "share your contributions and improvements with the community".

It's called copyleft, something a "permissive" license like MIT explicitly wants to avoid.

[khailper]

I agree.

…

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 12:08 PM Salim B ***@***.***> wrote: I prefer to have a restriction such as "share your contributions and improvements with the community". It's called copyleft <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft>, something a "permissive" license like MIT explicitly wants to avoid. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1252 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADE3W7WGKWD2HNN2K3I2HLTSLB4ZRANCNFSM4STR2DAA> .

[riccardoporreca]

I agree

[pat-s]

I agree

[davidchall]

I agree

[muschellij2]

I agree

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 1:42 PM David C Hall ***@***.***> wrote: I agree — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1252 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIGPLVH5Z2M2JAUE2ELEPTSLCA2HANCNFSM4STR2DAA> .

-- Best, John

[ncarchedi]

I agree

[jayhesselberth]

I agree

[dchiu911]

I agree

[VincentGuyader]

I agree Le ven. 16 oct. 2020 à 20:13, Derek Chiu <notifications@github.com> a écrit :

…

I agree — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1252 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACP4KKZKZPW5REY5IENUKYLSLCENPANCNFSM4STR2DAA> .

[stufield]

I agree

[jdblischak]

I agree

[jmgirard]

I agree

[Geoff99]

I agree

[njtierney]

I agree

[maelle]

I agree

[llrs]

I agree

[GegznaV]

I agree.
Very good initiative to use MIT.

[pr130]

I agree

[rorynolan]

I agree

[strboul]

I agree

[ryapric]

I agree.

…

On Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 10:43 Metin Yazici ***@***.***> wrote: I agree — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1252 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFKQ5DOXTSIFCKQIMIKE7PDSLG3STANCNFSM4STR2DAA> .

[smwindecker]

I agree.

[dpprdan]

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.

@hadley Could you elaborate on why you want to make this change, please? In particular, what exactly prompted you to choose GPL in the first place and what makes you want to change to MIT now? I am more interested in the "systematically" than in the particular usethis case (which, I assume, is GPL due to devtools and the base R code used therein). This is a substantial change and I suppose the community would be interested in your rationale (well, at least I am).

Anyway, I agree with this change here, because I would not have not contributed at the time, had usethis already been MIT-licensed then.

[hadley]

@dpprdan you can see some discussion at tidyverse/ggplot2#4236

[karaesmen]

I agree.

[batpigandme]

Hi @KOSHKE, @lbusett, @noamross, @overmar, and @statwonk,
We'd love to get your agreement please, if you could take a look when you have a chance. 🙂
Thanks!

[noamross]

I agree

[statwonk]

I agree.

[jennybc]

@hadley @batpigandme The 3 remaining appear to be essentially inactive on GitHub, so I believe this issue has served its purpose.

[overmar]

I agree

…

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 7:03 PM Jennifer (Jenny) Bryan < ***@***.***> wrote: @hadley <https://github.com/hadley> @batpigandme <https://github.com/batpigandme> The 3 remaining appear to be essentially inactive on GitHub, so I believe this issue has served its purpose. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1252 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHLK5HPEKFFWAC5EJPVWZR3SQMFMBANCNFSM4STR2DAA> .

[jennybc]

I stand corrected! Thanks @overmar.

[hadley]

We have made a good-faith attempt to get consent from all contributor to the package under the previous license. This has included reviewing contributions to the package for non-trivial changes, seeking agreement to re-license with GitHub issues, sending a reminding after two weeks, and reaching out by e-mail (where possible).

Unfortunately, we have not received a response from @lbusett. We have carefully reviewed their contributions. Given that the contributions are relatively small, and no one has objected to re-licensing across all tidyverse and r-lib repos, we are going to move ahead with the re-licensing. Of course, if we later discover that contributors are not happy with the re-licensing, we'll re-implement their changes.

[llrs]

If you needed our consent to change the license don't we also hold the copyright?
I propose to change on LICENSE

-COPYRIGHT HOLDER: usethis authors
+COPYRIGHT HOLDER: usethis contributors

[hadley]

@llrs yes, we'd consider you to be an author of usethis.

[llrs]

Many thanks @hadley glad to contribute to the package 🥳 but that is not reflected on the Description of the package. We are not listed there as authors or contributors. I'm fine with not appearing on the Description, just hope there is a balance between this issue, where we are authors and you need our approval for re-licensing, and the usual practice 😅 .

[salim-b]

(...) this issue, where we are authors and you need our approval for re-licensing, and the usual practice.

I guess legal prudence and social status are not the same thing. 😜

[hadley]

@llrs our policy is to only use Authors@R for significant and sustained contributions to the package, and acknowledge other contributions in blog posts. This allows us to clearly recognise those folks who have put in a lot of effort over a long period, while still thanking everyone who's made the package better, no matter how small their contribution is. If you want to discuss this policy, I'd suggest opening a new issue, so all 50+ folks on this issue aren't notified every time you comment.

[jennybc]

I have learned that @lbusett recently passed away, which explains the lack of response.

https://docs.ropensci.org/MODIStsp/articles/lorenzo.html