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

Wrong license text #5

Closed
blinxen opened this issue Nov 7, 2023 · 8 comments
Closed

Wrong license text #5

blinxen opened this issue Nov 7, 2023 · 8 comments

Comments

@blinxen
Copy link

blinxen commented Nov 7, 2023

Thanks for a adding a license file!! It seems that the added license file contains the Unlicense license text. Since your repository is only a fork, I don't think you can just change the license under which the code is published. You either have to change the license text to match the ISC license or talk to upstream and see if he wants to re-license the project too. Did you change it willingly? If not, then you can just copy https://github.com/Maskhjarna/tree-sitter-purescript/blob/main/LICENSE.

@postsolar
Copy link
Owner

Sorry, I didn't put much thought into that. Actually upstream is itself a fork of Haskell grammar, which is MIT. Am I only allowed to license it as MIT in this case?

@blinxen
Copy link
Author

blinxen commented Nov 7, 2023

Hm, I missed that. That would also be an issue. I will create a PR upstream and fix this.

@postsolar
Copy link
Owner

If you can arrange the text so that it separates the licensing of Haskell code and our own code it would be great. From what I understand, MIT allows one to relicense a project as long as the MIT parts are kept MIT. In case of our own code, I don't want potential distributors to be obliged to mention its origin.

@blinxen
Copy link
Author

blinxen commented Nov 7, 2023

I just submitted Maskhjarna/tree-sitter-purescript#30.

In case of our own code, I don't want potential distributors to be obliged to mention its origin.

Well that is not really possible :/. If you choose to re-license it then the code will be licensed under MIT AND ISC. That's how it is in most distros.

@postsolar
Copy link
Owner

postsolar commented Nov 7, 2023

under MIT AND ISC

If the license says something like, "Parts of this code ... Haskell/MIT ... other parts of this code ... some other license" and then someone picks up parts which are not from Haskell, are they still obliged to include the MIT license?

@postsolar
Copy link
Owner

That's what I see being said on the web on this topic. If yes then awesome, if no then I'd just opt for the most simple resolution 🙂.

@blinxen
Copy link
Author

blinxen commented Nov 7, 2023

If the license says something like, "Parts of this code ... Haskell/MIT ... other parts of this code ... some other license" and then someone picks up parts which are not from Haskell, are they still obliged to include the MIT license?

No but then you would have to explicitly describe what is from the original haskel code and what is 100% from you. Which is not always possible / easy. That is why I think keeping MIT would be best.

@blinxen
Copy link
Author

blinxen commented Nov 7, 2023

I will close this issue and move further discussion to Maskhjarna/tree-sitter-purescript#30.

@blinxen blinxen closed this as completed Nov 7, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants