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

Switch from LGPL to MIT #209

Closed
6 of 16 tasks
StollD opened this issue Aug 27, 2017 · 7 comments
Closed
6 of 16 tasks

Switch from LGPL to MIT #209

StollD opened this issue Aug 27, 2017 · 7 comments
Labels
question

Comments

@StollD
Copy link
Member

StollD commented Aug 27, 2017 •
edited by teknoman117

For some time I've been thinking about switching Kopernicus to the MIT license (as opposed to the LGPL), and I finally took the time to write this proposal. My reasons for it are fairly simple:

  • MIT is way easier than the LGPL (7600 characters vs. 1050 characters)
  • MIT is more open than LGPL (it allows other people to do whatever they want with the code, they only need to give proper credit)
  • Because of that it is also more compatible with other licenses.
  • And my personal experience has shown that the MIT license is way better than the LGPL
  • Kopernicus is not just a planet adding mod anymore. It is full of Utility functions and libraries, and I have often used them in other mods with different licenses. MIT would make using single functions or libraries from Kopernicus easier.

Thats why I am asking everyone who contributed to Kopernicus if they are ok with me relicensing the code and future releases under the MIT License.

The license change would affect the Kopernicus, KopernicusExamples and config-parser repositories.
@dbent
Copy link
Contributor

dbent commented Aug 27, 2017

I agree. 👍

@BryceSchroeder
Copy link
Contributor

BryceSchroeder commented Aug 27, 2017 via email

@HebaruSan
Copy link
Contributor

Just in case this is still a live question after Bryce's response, I consent to having my (minor) contributions published under LGPL, MIT, GPL, or public domain.

@Gerry1135
Copy link
Contributor

I suspect you're right about this now being a dead issue but, for the record, while I don't fully agree with all the reasons StollD gave, I would agree to my contributions being relicensed under the MIT license (as all my personal KSP mod projects are).

@LGhassen
Copy link
Contributor

I'm okay with MIT license.

@Olympic1
Copy link
Contributor

Olympic1 commented Sep 1, 2017

I agree

@StollD StollD closed this as completed Nov 8, 2017
@teknoman117
Copy link
Contributor

teknoman117 commented Jan 31, 2018 •
edited

For some reason this showed up in my notifications today.

I'm generally of the same mindset as @BryceSchroeder .

However, one thing that could be done is move as much of the Kopernicus utility logic into a separate Kopernicus utility DLL. LGPL doesn't prevent you from using the library from some other project (open or proprietary), just that you must be able to swap the library for a different version, a derivative version, or something else entirely. Compartmentalizing the functionality that makes sense to export would make it easier to use with other projects.

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

No branches or pull requests
8 participants
@teknoman117 @BryceSchroeder @dbent @HebaruSan @Gerry1135 @StollD @Olympic1 @LGhassen