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

Updating license ISC to GPL3 in ./backend #50

Merged

Conversation

vSt11
Copy link
Contributor

@vSt11 vSt11 commented Nov 22, 2022

Like specified, it needed to be simply updated

Like specified, it needed to be simply updated
@vSt11 vSt11 linked an issue Nov 22, 2022 that may be closed by this pull request
@amtoine amtoine requested review from atxr and ctmbl November 22, 2022 09:11
backend/package.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@ctmbl ctmbl unassigned atxr, amtoine and ctmbl Nov 22, 2022
@ctmbl ctmbl added this to the iScsc blog v0.2.0 milestone Nov 22, 2022
@ctmbl ctmbl added good first issue Good for newcomers repo issue An issue that address the whole project/repo not a specific code feature Priority: Medium The Issue must be addressed as soon as possible labels Nov 22, 2022
@ctmbl
Copy link
Contributor

ctmbl commented Nov 22, 2022

I forgot to mention it, but maybe we should also update author? see the doc about person author and contributors, but I'm fine with letting Alexandre Tullot for now and update it on later PRs (contributing to the backend I mean)

Should i write '3.0 only', or '3.0 or later' ?
@vSt11
Copy link
Contributor Author

vSt11 commented Nov 23, 2022

For the author field, do you allow me to give your email @atxr ? If so, you can reply it to me here then.
I don't really know all the people I should credit for now, maybe it's better to update it later, in a different issue ?

Copy link
Contributor

@ctmbl ctmbl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

After reading our license (really just the beginning) I think sticking with GPL-3.0-only is fine 👍

As for the author field I would like to see @atxr opinion first 😉
But as is this PR is good to merge according to me!

Copy link
Contributor

@atxr atxr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Aha I'm totally fine about being the author of this repo, even if it's the whole club 😉
About the mail, I don't have any problem, but I think putting the iscsc mail would be better
supaerocsclub@gmail.com

@ctmbl ctmbl changed the title Updating license ISC to LICENSE.MD in ./backend Updating license ISC to GPL3 in ./backend Nov 28, 2022
@ctmbl
Copy link
Contributor

ctmbl commented Nov 28, 2022

@atxr @vSt11
I think for now @atxr should approve the PR and we'll merge it 🚀 , we can continue this author discussion which is outside the scope of the PR here

Copy link
Contributor

@atxr atxr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@ctmbl is right, this author discussion is out of the scope of #50
Let's merge this 🚀

@atxr atxr merged commit e138d00 into main Nov 28, 2022
@atxr atxr deleted the 32-license-is-gpl3-but-otherwise-defined-in-backendpackagejson branch November 28, 2022 19:30
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
good first issue Good for newcomers Priority: Medium The Issue must be addressed as soon as possible repo issue An issue that address the whole project/repo not a specific code feature
Projects
Status: Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

License is GPL3 but otherwise defined in ./backend/package.json
4 participants