Change license to MIT

[aantron]

Lwt is has an odd license situation, described below. To reduce confusion and make Lwt easier on users, I propose we change to the MIT license, or another such permissive license.

Please give permission

I have ccd all the contributors to Lwt further down. If you allow Lwt to change the license, please leave a comment on this issue. If you object, definitely please leave a comment :)

Anyone else is free to comment as well, of course.

I don't think we need literally every contributor to comment here. We will make public announcements, leave this open for a long while, and if all seems well, make the switch. But the more contributors comment, the clearer and cleaner the process.

Status

• The "main" body of the license is the LGPL 2.1.
• However, there is special text for use with OpenSSL:

  lwt/doc/COPYING

  Lines 1 to 3 in c3cdfb3

  	This program is released under the LGPL version 2.1 (see the text below) with
  	the additional exemption that compiling, linking, and/or using OpenSSL is
  	allowed.

• ...and another block of extraordinary text:

  lwt/doc/COPYING

  Lines 5 to 17 in c3cdfb3

  	As a special exception to the GNU Library General Public License, you
  	may also link, statically or dynamically, a "work that uses the Library"
  	with a publicly distributed version of the Library to produce an
  	executable file containing portions of the Library, and distribute
  	that executable file under terms of your choice, without any of the
  	additional requirements listed in clause 6 of the GNU Library General
  	Public License. By "a publicly distributed version of the Library",
  	we mean either the unmodified Library, or a
  	modified version of the Library that is distributed under the
  	conditions defined in clause 3 of the GNU Library General Public
  	License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons
  	why the executable file might be covered by the GNU Library General
  	Public License.

• In addition, Lwt_react is licensed under the 3-clause BSD license, which is what I believe this last bit of extra text refers to:

  lwt/doc/COPYING

  Lines 19 to 20 in c3cdfb3

  	Some parts, when stated (as licenced under BSD3) are licenced under
  	3-clauses or Modified BSD License.

cc @acieroid @agarwal @andrewray @avsm @bobbypriambodo @c-cube @cedlemo @chambart @copy @damiendoligez @dannywillems @dbuenzli @diml @dmbaturin @domsj @Drup @dsheets @edwintorok @emillon @fdopen @gabelevi @gasche @gdsfh @glondu @haesbaert @hannesm @hcarty @hhugo @hnrgrgr @iitalics @jasone @jjd27 @jpdeplaix @jsthomas @kandu @kennetpostigo @kerneis @Leonidas-from-XIV @leowzukw @malo-denielou @mfp @mor1 @nojb @olasd @orbifx @persianturtle @pqwy @pveber @raphael-proust @rgrinberg

[aantron]

Second comment because of cc limit.

cc @Richard-Degenne @rneswold @ryanslade @seliopou @simonjbeaumont @smithjessk @smondet @stijn-devriendt @talex5 @timbertson @toolslive @vbmithr @vouillon @whitequark @yallop @ygrek @ZackC @zoggy

[yallop]

I'm fine with this change.

[domsj]

ok for me 👍

[persianturtle]

No objection here. 👍

[c-cube]

fine by me! 👍

[Leonidas-from-XIV]

I'm ok with this change 👍

[copy]

I'm ok with this change.

[Drup]

I'm pretty sure the license is in fact standard "LGPL + linking exception" which is common in the OCaml community. I'm very confused why Lwt_react is under a difference license, though.

That being said, I don't mind the change.

[smondet]

MIT license works for me 👍

[ghost]

I'd prefer if the licence remained copyleft, such as LGPL.

[kit-ty-kate]

Fine by me

[jasone]

Fine by me.

[dmbaturin]

I don't see anything strange with the current situation. OpenSSL exception will fortunately become redundant soon as they are switching to a BSD license. The "extraordinary block of text" is there to permit free distribution of binaries statically linked with the library.

However, if you think MIT or equivalent will be better for the project, I have no objections.

I feel a bit uneasy about the third clause of the 3-clause BSD license though — while it was judged to be GPL-compatible, I feel like it may be discouraging innocous and even beneficial activities such as hanging a "powered by Lwt" banner on the project website. If we are at it, can we also get rid of the third clause?

[acieroid]

Fine by me 👍

[timbertson]

Fine by me 👍

[seliopou]

I'm ok with this

[edwintorok]

I'm ok with this

[hcarty]

I'm happy with the license change 👍

[dbuenzli]

Ok for me.

[kerneis]

I'm ok with the change as far as my code is concerned (I'm not even sure any of it has survived until today).

I don't think we need literally every contributor to comment here. We will make public announcements, leave this open for a long while, and if all seems well, make the switch. But the more contributors comment, the clearer and cleaner the process.

But this is risky I think (note that i'm not a lawyer). See https://www.videolan.org/press/lgpl-libvlc.html for an example of relicensing; they reached out to *all* contributors, and rewrote the code of the one they couldn't get agreement from.

[bobbypriam]

No problem for me. 👍

[whitequark]

I'l fine with this

[rgrinberg]

Relicense my code as you see fit. +1

…

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018, 7:42 AM whitequark ***@***.***> wrote: I'l fine with this — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#560 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIe-7yZ57R9bioNvh8VjDHbI7ZMAA2Fks5tbyzjgaJpZM4Sffjo> .

[smithjessk]

Sounds good.

[nojb]

Ok for me.

[ryanslade]

Fine with me 👍

[ygrek]

ok

[pveber]

I'm fine with the change, thanks!

[toolslive]

ok.

[gasche]

For me the main question is: the people who created Lwt (and decided on the license) and, before you, developed most of it (I would think of @vouillon and @diml, do they agree with the proposed license change? (I would expect that this was discussed with them beforehand.)

On my own contribution, I am of course fine with using the MIT license.

[avsm]

Fine by me, and also highly appreciated!

[aantron]

@dmbaturin I'd like to change Lwt_react to MIT as well, so we won't have the BSD license at all anymore.

@haesbaert Indeed, I usually wouldn't expect to be asked about most contributions I've made to projects. But on the other hand, some people have made considerable contributions to Lwt, without making or being made aware of any statement or agreement about copyright, and/or forgetting (both contributor and reviewer) to change or create the license header, etc. So there seems to be a considerable gray area. It seems reasonable to check thoroughly for objections and other opinions, as suggested by @kerneis and @dmbaturin, even if we expect that most contributors generously don't believe themselves to have rights over their contributions.

[agarwal]

I'm okay with the change.

[kandu]

fine by me

[andrewray]

Fine by me.

…

On 6 Mar 2018 21:49, "Anton Bachin" ***@***.***> wrote: Lwt is has an odd license situation, described below. To reduce confusion and make Lwt easier on users, I propose we change to the MIT license, or another such permissive license. Please give permission I have ccd all the contributors to Lwt further down. If you allow Lwt to change the license, please leave a comment on this issue. If you object, definitely please leave a comment :) Anyone else is free to comment as well, of course. I don't think we need literally every contributor to comment here. We will make public announcements, leave this open for a long while, and if all seems well, make the switch. But the more contributors comment, the clearer and cleaner the process. Status - The "main" body of the license <https://github.com/ocsigen/lwt/blob/c3cdfb303663cb1a1733244da53a321256a1cfeb/doc/COPYING> is the LGPL 2.1. - However, there is special text for use with OpenSSL: https://github.com/ocsigen/lwt/blob/c3cdfb303663cb1a1733244da53a32 1256a1cfeb/doc/COPYING#L1-L3 <https://github.com/ocsigen/lwt/blob/c3cdfb303663cb1a1733244da53a321256a1cfeb/doc/COPYING#L1-L3> - ...and another block of extraordinary text: https://github.com/ocsigen/lwt/blob/c3cdfb303663cb1a1733244da53a32 1256a1cfeb/doc/COPYING#L5-L17 <https://github.com/ocsigen/lwt/blob/c3cdfb303663cb1a1733244da53a321256a1cfeb/doc/COPYING#L5-L17> - In addition, Lwt_react <https://github.com/ocsigen/lwt/blob/c3cdfb303663cb1a1733244da53a321256a1cfeb/src/react/lwt_react.mli> is licensed under the 3-clause BSD license, which is what I believe this last bit of extra text refers to: https://github.com/ocsigen/lwt/blob/ c3cdfb3/doc/COPYING#L19-L20 <https://github.com/ocsigen/lwt/blob/c3cdfb303663cb1a1733244da53a321256a1cfeb/doc/COPYING#L19-L20> cc @acieroid <https://github.com/acieroid> @agarwal <https://github.com/agarwal> @andrewray <https://github.com/andrewray> @avsm <https://github.com/avsm> @bobbypriambodo <https://github.com/bobbypriambodo> @c-cube <https://github.com/c-cube> @cedlemo <https://github.com/cedlemo> @chambart <https://github.com/chambart> @copy <https://github.com/copy> @damiendoligez <https://github.com/damiendoligez> @dannywillems <https://github.com/dannywillems> @dbuenzli <https://github.com/dbuenzli> @diml <https://github.com/diml> @dmbaturin <https://github.com/dmbaturin> @domsj <https://github.com/domsj> @Drup <https://github.com/drup> @dsheets <https://github.com/dsheets> @edwintorok <https://github.com/edwintorok> @emillon <https://github.com/emillon> @fdopen <https://github.com/fdopen> @gabelevi <https://github.com/gabelevi> @gasche <https://github.com/gasche> @gdsfh <https://github.com/gdsfh> @glondu <https://github.com/glondu> @haesbaert <https://github.com/haesbaert> @hannesm <https://github.com/hannesm> @hcarty <https://github.com/hcarty> @hhugo <https://github.com/hhugo> @hnrgrgr <https://github.com/hnrgrgr> @iitalics <https://github.com/iitalics> @jasone <https://github.com/jasone> @jjd27 <https://github.com/jjd27> @jpdeplaix <https://github.com/jpdeplaix> @jsthomas <https://github.com/jsthomas> @kandu <https://github.com/kandu> @kennetpostigo <https://github.com/kennetpostigo> @kerneis <https://github.com/kerneis> @Leonidas-from-XIV <https://github.com/leonidas-from-xiv> @leowzukw <https://github.com/leowzukw> @malo-denielou <https://github.com/malo-denielou> @mfp <https://github.com/mfp> @mor1 <https://github.com/mor1> @nojb <https://github.com/nojb> @olasd <https://github.com/olasd> @orbifx <https://github.com/orbifx> @persianturtle <https://github.com/persianturtle> @pqwy <https://github.com/pqwy> @pveber <https://github.com/pveber> @raphael-proust <https://github.com/raphael-proust> @rgrinberg <https://github.com/rgrinberg> — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#560>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFqzIxsFief1Bu9CAf8l9JTvGwjJbNvoks5tbwSDgaJpZM4Sffjo> .

[stijn-devriendt]

Approved by our legal team.
Otherwise, fine by me too.

[damiendoligez]

OK for me for the license change.

@dmbaturin I was once asked to sign a Contributor Licence Agreement for a contribution that consisted entirely of removing one character from a source file. Do you think such a contribution is (or should be) covered by copyright? I don't.

[dmbaturin]

@damiendoligez People like SCO are constantly trying to push it as far as they can, and in the civil law it's the defendant who has to prove the claim wrong — I can see why people may want to stay completely on the safe side. Anyway, my own position is more of "be conservative in what you do and liberal in what you accept". I'm fine with my own contributions to Lwt being relicensed whether they are big or small, but as a maintainer I wouldn't assume that everyone else will be.

Still, it's an interesting philosophical question, how physical size of a contribution relates to its importance. A person who fixed a remotely exploitable vulnerability by removing one character might have contributed more to the project than someone who wrote thousands lines of useful but non-essential code — whether the change itself can be copyrighted or not, I would be inclined to ask their opinion before making license changes.

[rneswold]

Fine by me.

[pqwy]

I don't think any of my code is in Lwt, so I also don't believe I have rights over it.

I'm fine with this change either way.

[Richard-Degenne]

Sorry I haven't checked out Lwt in a while.

It's all right with me! :)

[vouillon]

I'm okay with the change.

[olasd]

Hi,

I'm fine with the change.

Thanks!
Nicolas

[dsheets]

This is great news. I'm happy with this change.

[chambart]

I'm ok, no objections.

[aantron]

Thank you all, the license is now MIT :)

The final status was:

• Almost all contributors and organizations involved in Lwt development agreed.

• Some of the agreements were communicated by email or in Gitter.

• There were no objections.

• A few (~5) contributors did not respond, but in each of those cases, several of the following hold:

  • The contributions are of such a nature, that we think most contributors would not consider themselves to have rights over them. Precedent seems to agree at least in the United States.
  • The contributions have since been largely overwritten by other contributions.
  • The contributions were to parts of Lwt that have since been factored out into other repos, whose licenses we aren't changing (lwt_camlp4, lwt_ssl, etc).

Since we didn't get explicit assent from a few contributors, however, I think it's best not to apply MIT retroactively to past Lwt releases. In some of them, the contributions we don't have assent for were still current. So, the MIT license applies to the next release of Lwt, and to master starting from the commit that closed this issue.

[ZackC]

I’m fine with it if you need consent. I didn’t think my contributions were enough where I should have any influence on the situation. Zack Coker

…

On Apr 23, 2018, at 7:25 PM, Anton Bachin ***@***.***> wrote: Thank you all, the license is now MIT :) The final status was: Almost all contributors and organizations involved in Lwt development agreed. Some of the agreements were communicated by email or in Gitter. There were no objections. A few (~5) contributors did not respond, but in each of those cases, several of the following hold: The contributions are of such a nature, that we think most contributors would not consider themselves to have rights over them. Precedent seems to agree at least in the United States. The contributions have since been largely overwritten by other contributions. The contributions were to parts of Lwt that have since been factored out into other repos, whose licenses we aren't changing (lwt_camlp4, lwt_ssl, etc). Since we didn't get explicit assent from a few contributors, however, I think it's best not to apply MIT retroactively to past Lwt releases. In some of them, the contributions we don't have assent for were still current. So, the MIT license applies to the next release of Lwt, and to master starting from the commit that closed this issue. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#560 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABJTj_5h11QWf3R8bIJpNcpGV8HxIqq5ks5trmLzgaJpZM4Sffjo>.

[aantron]

Thank you nonetheless :)

[tychota]

The readme badge still display lgpl, i think.

[tychota]

#582 - > update the readme badge too.

[AkihiroSuda]

Could you release 4.0.2 with the new license?

[aantron]

@AkihiroSuda Yes, will do so in the coming days. I guess it will be 4.1.0, because we added a few things.

[aantron]

@AkihiroSuda Lwt 4.1.0 is now out. I'll make a broader announcement shortly as well.