Relicense to Apache 2.0 #17
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
LindsayHill
approved these changes
Feb 25, 2020
Kami
approved these changes
Feb 25, 2020
lampwins
approved these changes
Feb 25, 2020
enykeev
approved these changes
Jun 23, 2020
Contributor
enykeev
left a comment
enykeev
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
welp. Sorry for that I guess :P
|
|
Contributor
|
Closing: @whites2 unresponsive on licence change which is a hard blocker on this merge. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
TL;DR: WHAT I NEED FROM ALL OF YOU
This is a relicensing PR, so I need all of you to review this PR and explicitly approve the changes.
I need ALL of you to approve the changes before I can merge it in.
Details
Hi everybody, I'd like to relicense this pack from the MIT license to Apache License 2.0, which is what the rest of the packs on StackStorm Exchange, as well as StackStorm itself, are licensed under.
I realize that this may seem like arguing over semantics, but keeping a consistent license between StackStorm and all StackStorm Exchange packs is very useful for our customers and users, because if all Exchange packs are consistently licensed, then our users can install any Exchange pack without worrying about the licensing.
As it stands now, our users have to check that they will be in compliance with the license of every Exchange pack before they install it, which can be annoying.
We now have an Apache 2.0 license check in our pack CI configuration, which is now causing this pack to fail CI.
Under the Apache license, code contributors grant patent licenses to all users (section 3), and users are explicitly not granted a right to use any trademarks of this project (section 6).