Relicense as PSF-compatible?

[wesm]

I was hoping to contribute to this module, but as both Python itself and IPython are permissively licensed, it might make sense for this to also be permissively licensed. If not, I'll eventually make something MIT licensed from scratch that meets my needs.

[gotcha]

I will accept a PR that does the relicensing.

[wesm]

It's pretty involved, as you'll have to get all the contributors to sign off on it; I don't fully understand how to do that

[miohtama]

Has ipdb been always on the Github? In this caes getting contributors off the github page is enough.

Otherwise looking git logs, digging up prior repositories (SVN?) and then trying to map emails to people behind them. Sending email to everybody. Wishing for the reply rate. Contacting Python community friends for hunting the person down if they are missing in action.

[gotcha]

@pjdelport @Psycojoker @pgularski @dimasad @lebedov @kynan @msabramo @mauritsvanrees @omergertel @marciomazza @aldrik @woutervh

I think relicensing ipdb to a PSF compatible license makes sense.
Do you agree ? Can you give an explicit answer on this issue ?

Thanks

[gotcha]

Before github, it was on my svn server. I confirm that I have been the only contributor until it was moved here.

[omergertel]

I agree. Thanks.

[PiDelport]

I'm all for it. :)

[dimasad]

I agree. I myself license my stuff all with permissive licenses like MIT or
BSD.
Em 01/07/2015 07:00, "Piet Delport" [email protected] escreveu:

I'm all for it. :)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#68 (comment).

[woutervh]

No problem for relicensing

[Psycojoker]

I prefer copyleft licence but I can understand the need for a PSF-compatible licence here, you have my agreement.

[lebedov]

I agree - BSD/MIT (or something similar) would be great.

[lebedov]

If ipdb is relicensed, I'll relicense ripdb accordingly.

[pgularski]

I'm totally fine with the license change here.

[aldrik]

As you wish. It's of course fine with me.

[mauritsvanrees]

Agreed.

Maurits van Rees
http://maurits.vanrees.org

Op 1 jul. 2015 om 11:35 heeft Godefroid Chapelle [email protected] het volgende geschreven:

@pjdelport @Psycojoker @pgularski @dimasad @lebedov @kynan @msabramo @mauritsvanrees @omergertel @marciomazza @aldrik @woutervh

I think relicensing ipdb to a PSF compatible license makes sense.
Do you agree ? Can you give an explicit answer on this issue ?

Thanks

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[kynan]

Agree with the relicensing.

[msabramo]

Agree with the relicensing.

[lebedov]

@marciomazza, do you approve of the ipdb relicensing?

[bowlofeggs]

I don't believe this is necessary. gnu.org lists the Python license as being compatible with the GPL:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#Python

[wesm]

@rbarlow the issue is going the other direction. I would like to see ipdb able to be distributed alongside permissively licensed software (like IPython and Python itself) because it is useful, but the GPL prevents that.

[marciomazza]

Yes, I agree with the relicensing.

[bowlofeggs]

@wesm When you say "distributed alongside", do you mean "comes with", as in it gets absorbed by those projects and ceases to be separate? In that case, I would agree with you.

If you mean "distributed alongside" as in "a GNU/Linux distribution can ship this package and ship IPython and they work together", I don't believe a re-licensing is needed.

Or do you mean something different?

I'm not arguing that you shouldn't relicense this package (it is your right as the copyright holders of course!) I want to make sure everyone is clear on what the GPL requires, because there is a large amount of misinformation out there about it and many people are afraid of it due to this.

I personally think the GPL is a great license for users and for developers because it guarantees that a developer's efforts cannot be leeched by someone else who wants to proprietize the work. For example, if I spend 10 years making librbarlow, I don't want Closed Source, Inc. to take it and incorporate it into some software they are selling that doesn't respect their users' freedom. If I choose GPL, that would be disallowed by the license and I personally find that very attractive as a developer. Of course, this does not appeal to everyone but I think it's a point worth considering for yourselves.

From a user's perspective it's not as important because any software licensed to them that guarantees their four freedoms is fine (like the BSD or MIT).

Either way, I'm happy that you are staying with a free license!

[wesm]

@rbarlow there's no point in rehashing the GPL vs permissive debate. In part because Python packaging is such a disaster zone, it has become quite common in enterprise settings to distribute relocatable Python environments, and concerns around distributing GPL dependencies frequently wastes user time. Developers are free to choose this license, but it is often easier for users to drop the GPL code altogether than to have the lawyers analyze the way in which the software is used to determine if the viral provisions of the GPL "kick in".

[gotcha]

It took some time before all previous developers confirmed that they agreed with relicensing... and I missed when it happened.

Some code from new developers has been added since then.

@IxDay @nikolas @JamshedVesuna @sas23 @emulbreh

Do you also agree with relicensing ?

[IxDay]

Agreed

[sas23]

Agreed

On Thursday, 18 February 2016, IxDay [email protected] wrote:

Agreed

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#68 (comment).

[emulbreh]

Agreed