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.

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

Determine project license #99

Closed
PeterBowman opened this issue Apr 7, 2017 · 16 comments
Closed

Determine project license #99

PeterBowman opened this issue Apr 7, 2017 · 16 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@PeterBowman
Copy link
Member

Root LICENSE is a BSD-3-clause. Exported CMake configs and main.cpp files at src/programs/ state that this is LGPL v2.1. Several CMake list files prefer GLP v2.0.

@jgvictores
Copy link
Member

Yes, we should determine a license. For now:

  • I've added some history at History of Robot Devastation #100 (copyright->LGPL->BSD... 😂).
  • Our GPL seems to be only in share.
  • We apparently do not link to any external GPL.
  • I've been reading on license switching. Since we are few core developers, I expect we are not going to have any issues for agreeing, so transition will run smoothly.

@jgvictores
Copy link
Member

Ok LGPL v2.1?

@David-Estevez
Copy link
Collaborator

@smorante agrees with LPGL v2.1, what changes need to be done?

@David-Estevez
Copy link
Collaborator

image

@PeterBowman
Copy link
Member Author

Let me drop this here regarding copyright notices on top of each source file:

http://lu.is/blog/2012/03/17/on-the-importance-of-per-file-license-information/

@jgvictores
Copy link
Member

+1 to adding copyright notices (license, author(s) or at least something ASROB) on top of each source file.

Not sure if it's stated in the article, but the fact is many times it's noobs who don't worry about licenses they're unaware about, and just copy and paste files. Adding 1-2 header lines can increase traceability of where and how our files are being used, which is definitely a plus.

@PeterBowman
Copy link
Member Author

I've just found this article which favours GPL over LGPL licenses:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html

@jgvictores
Copy link
Member

jgvictores commented Oct 1, 2017

GNU are a bit (legitimately) biased towards GPL. 😄
LGPL has the benefit of not scaring off potential industry partners, while still encouraging them to improve whatever set of core libraries we provide.

@jgvictores
Copy link
Member

Need:

  1. Templates for new uniform headers (for c++, cmake).
  2. Script (possibly python) for incorporating this uniform header in files.

@jgvictores
Copy link
Member

* Authors: See https://github.com/asrob-uc3m/robotDevastation/blob/master/AUTHORS.md
* CopyPolicy: Released under the terms of the LGPLv2.1, see https://github.com/asrob-uc3m/robotDevastation/blob/master/LICENSE

@jgvictores
Copy link
Member

* Authors: See AUTHORS.md at project root.
* CopyPolicy: Released under the terms of the LGPLv2.1, see LICENSE at project root.
* URL: https://github.com/asrob-uc3m/robotDevastation

@PeterBowman
Copy link
Member Author

See also How to Apply These Terms to Your New Libraries at:

https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/blob/7213ccf/_licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt#L494-L538

@PeterBowman
Copy link
Member Author

Resolved at #117.

@PeterBowman
Copy link
Member Author

Strangely enough, we actually forgot to update the LICENSE file itself. Done at 99f5d02 (and I've just forgotten to [skip ci], yay!).

@jgvictores
Copy link
Member

No problem LOL!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants