[4/4] License under dual MIT/Apache-2.0

Question

[4/4] License under dual MIT/Apache-2.0

est31 opened this issue 7 years ago · 45 comments

This is a sign-off issue as per RFC 2044 (tracking issue) to license the rust-lang/rfcs repo under dual Apache2/MIT licensing terms.

You are receiving this notification because you have contributed to this repo.

For a discussion on why this move is desired, please see the RFC's text.

While smaller changes can't be copyrighted by law, its non-trivial to find out with certainity whether a given change falls under copyright or not, due to the nature of the matter. Therefore I'm asking you to agree to the new terms even if you consider your contributions to be not copyrightable.

To minimize noise in your inbox, let me use this opportunity to ask those among you who have unmerged RFCs in the queue to add a license header to your RFC drafts. In a few days/weeks I'll go through the list of open RFCs and ask for license headers to be added for the remaining RFCs that lack headers. The RFC's text contains the precise header (and has one already itself). Filing PRs to add headers to your already merged RFCs is not required, they will get headers in bulk.

Checkoff

To agree to the licensing terms, please comment with:

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Thank you!

Answer 1 · 2017-07-25T00:58:20.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 2 · 2017-07-25T00:58:43.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 3 · 2017-07-25T00:59:03.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 4 · 2017-07-25T00:59:43.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 5 · 2017-07-25T01:16:50.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 6 · 2017-07-25T01:18:46.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 7 · 2017-07-25T01:28:39.000Z

I think the following copy-paste licensing terms would be more appropriate:

I license my past contributions to the Rust RFC repository under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

This specifies which contributions your re-license (the ones to the Rust RFC repository), and that you're talking about the past contributions that need to be relicensed. Future contributions will be handled by the then-stated copyright of the whole repository

Answer 8 · 2017-07-25T01:29:30.000Z

I license my past contributions to the Rust RFC repository under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

Answer 9 · 2017-07-25T02:50:37.000Z

I license my past contributions to the Rust RFC repository under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

Using that sentence is okay as well! I'd say "to the Rust RFC repository" is implied in the one I've suggested...

Answer 10 · 2017-07-25T02:52:08.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 11 · 2017-07-25T02:53:53.000Z

(Side note: choose is misspelled in the original sentence but I think the acknowledgement should be verbatim in case the verification process is done by strcmp.)

Answer 12 · 2017-07-25T03:10:34.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 13 · 2017-07-25T03:21:12.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 14 · 2017-07-25T05:13:47.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 15 · 2017-07-25T05:38:27.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 16 · 2017-07-25T06:36:52.000Z

I license my past contributions to the Rust RFC repository under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

Answer 17 · 2017-07-25T08:02:41.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 18 · 2017-07-25T08:07:53.000Z

I license my past contributions to the Rust RFC repository under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

Answer 19 · 2017-07-25T08:12:27.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 20 · 2017-07-25T08:28:26.000Z

I license my past contributions to the Rust RFC repository under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

Answer 21 · 2017-07-25T09:32:33.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 22 · 2017-07-25T10:10:47.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 23 · 2017-07-25T10:31:58.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 24 · 2017-07-25T11:50:57.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 25 · 2017-07-25T11:55:42.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 26 · 2017-07-25T12:59:34.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 27 · 2017-07-25T14:01:42.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 28 · 2017-07-25T14:16:42.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 29 · 2017-07-25T14:28:09.000Z

I license past and future contributions under either the MIT or Apache 2.0 license; licensees may choose either at their option.

Answer 30 · 2017-07-26T08:44:36.000Z

I license my past contributions to the Rust RFC repository under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

Answer 31 · 2017-07-27T14:58:20.000Z

I license my past contributions to the Rust RFC repository under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

Answer 32 · 2017-07-27T19:42:59.000Z

~~I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.~~

I license my past contributions to the Rust RFC repository under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

Answer 33 · 2017-07-27T19:55:58.000Z

I license my past contributions to the Rust RFC repository under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

Answer 34 · 2017-07-29T14:06:57.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 35 · 2017-07-29T14:12:44.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 36 · 2017-07-29T16:31:26.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. On Jul 29, 2017 7:12 AM, "bluss" <notifications@github.com> wrote: I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2079 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABMVaoifeiQ3qxq71ZFVdFzhP8iJ9dorks5sSz3ggaJpZM4Oh7xZ> .

Answer 37 · 2017-08-02T18:58:08.000Z

I prefer MIT only. Apache should be left for actual implementation.

Answer 38 · 2017-08-03T00:04:40.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 39 · 2017-08-05T13:19:16.000Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Answer 40 · 2017-08-05T21:22:58.000Z

cc @tomjakubowski

Answer 41 · 2017-08-13T23:33:37.000Z

Friendly ping @zwarich

Answer 42 · 2017-10-28T15:14:48.000Z

I've checked the mark for @zwarich, they have been employee of Mozilla: https://linkedin.com/in/cameronzwarich

Answer 43 · 2018-04-26T07:28:46.000Z

Triage ping: cc @tomjakubowski

Answer 44 · 2018-10-08T08:37:59.000Z

Triage ping: cc @tomjakubowski

Answer 45 · 2019-12-23T07:57:10.000Z

@tomjakubowski waiting for you to consent to this