Re-license to Apache-2.0/MIT #71
Conversation
|
I changed the header comments where they exist to the standard Apache-2.0 one. I did not add them where they don't. This is the de-facto Rust license, and sidesteps potential issues with WTFPL. The main reason for this is to help clap_derive avoid license issues. |
|
One more ping for @bestouff, you said you'd post the blurb once you had the correct place to put it. |
|
I permit any contribution submitted for inclusion in StructOpt by me, as defined in the Apache-2.0 license, to be dual-licensed under Apache-2.0/MIT. |
2 similar comments
|
I permit any contribution submitted for inclusion in StructOpt by me, as defined in the Apache-2.0 license, to be dual-licensed under Apache-2.0/MIT. |
|
I permit any contribution submitted for inclusion in StructOpt by me, as defined in the Apache-2.0 license, to be dual-licensed under Apache-2.0/MIT. |
CHANGELOG.md
Outdated
| @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ | |||
| # Unreleased | |||
|
|
|||
| * Re-licensed to Apache-2.0/MIT | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add your name as in all the changelog lines.
examples/basic.rs
Outdated
| // distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, | ||
| // WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. | ||
| // See the License for the specific language governing permissions and | ||
| // limitations under the License. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please use something explicitly dual licensing as https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/libstd/lib.rs#L1-L9
| @@ -1 +0,0 @@ | |||
| ../COPYING | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please symlink the LICENSE-* files in this directory as asked in #61
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm on Windows, and this appeared as just a text file for me (and GitHub apparently).
The easiest (and common) solution is just to duplicate the license files, so unless you come up with a better idea that works through Git, I'll just do that (in a separate commit).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copying the files is OK for me.
|
I permit any contribution submitted for inclusion in StructOpt by me, as defined in the Apache-2.0 license, to be dual-licensed under Apache-2.0/MIT. |
|
I permit any contribution submitted for inclusion in StructOpt by me, as defined in the Apache-2.0 license, to be dual-licensed under Apache-2.0/MIT. |
1 similar comment
|
I permit any contribution submitted for inclusion in StructOpt by me, as defined in the Apache-2.0 license, to be dual-licensed under Apache-2.0/MIT. |
|
We get it @bestouff 😆 (You seem to have octuple posted) |
|
Sorry, did it from FastHub (It's early morning here) which gave back a "server error" each time. I've deleted the useless comments. |
|
I permit any contribution submitted for inclusion in StructOpt by me, as defined in the Apache-2.0 license, to be dual-licensed under Apache-2.0/MIT. |
1 similar comment
|
I permit any contribution submitted for inclusion in StructOpt by me, as defined in the Apache-2.0 license, to be dual-licensed under Apache-2.0/MIT. |
|
Well, that was relatively painless! All the code contributors have signed off, just tshepang to go with a minor doc change to permit the re-license. To be honest, their contribution seems (very) minor enough that the re-license could go on without their permission if they don't step forward for or against. But IANAL so don't take that as legal advice please, I just know enough to organize things, not make the judgement calls. I'd give @tshepang the rest of the week to step forward to yay/nay the re-license, but not block on it. |
|
I let @tshepang until Sunday to validate. I'll merge and do the new release on Monday even without the validation. (if @BurntSushi doesn't veto on it) |
|
@TeXitoi 👍 Thanks! |
| @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ documentation = "https://docs.rs/structopt" | |||
| repository = "https://github.com/TeXitoi/structopt" | |||
| keywords = ["clap", "cli", "derive", "docopt"] | |||
| categories = ["command-line-interface"] | |||
| license = "WTFPL" | |||
| license = "Apache-2.0/MIT" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please change that to MIT OR Apache-2.0 as in https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/blob/master/Cargo.toml#L7
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@TeXitoi Actually Apache-2.0/MIT is the correct syntax. See https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/manifest.html#package-metadata.
# This is a string description of the license for this package. Currently
# crates.io will validate the license provided against a whitelist of known
# license identifiers from http://spdx.org/licenses/. Multiple licenses can be
# separated with a `/`.
license = "..."There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK. My bad. Strange that cargo doesn't validate its own format.
|
Merged in missing_docs fix with 3f5b7ab, includes replacing the header as appropriate. |
|
Or... maybe that chunk didn't get added. Now 182ea23 does what I thought I had done 😆 |
|
I permit any contribution submitted for inclusion in StructOpt by me, as defined in the Apache-2.0 license, to be dual-licensed under Apache-2.0/MIT. |
|
All clear @TeXitoi! 🎉🎉🎉🎉 |
|
v0.2.4 published. Thanks to everybody! |
Separate licenses with a `/` instead of ` OR ` It's what we tell others to do. https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/manifest.html#package-metadata > ```toml > # This is a string description of the license for this package. Currently > # crates.io will validate the license provided against a whitelist of known > # license identifiers from http://spdx.org/licenses/. Multiple licenses can be > # separated with a `/`. > license = "..." > ``` Noted [here](TeXitoi/structopt#71 (comment)). This should either use `/` or a note should be added that ` OR ` is allowed as a combination operator.
This requires check-off from the following people:
You may copy-paste the following message to provide permission for the re-licensing: