Update LICENSE to allow closed-source apps to be made using PyPositron #8
+22
−661
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
[Closes #7 : Change the license to something else so that closed source projects can be made using PyPositron]
The previous license, GNU AGPL v3, would not allow any projects made using this framework to be closed source.
Type of change
Solution
To allow open source projects to be made using PyPositron, the two best options are using GNU LGPLv3 , Apache License 2.0 or MIT License instead of the current AGPLv3 license. I think the MIT license is better as its more permissive and won't require any closed source project made using PyPositron to:
The MIT license is also more common and simpler than Apache 2.0, LGPL or AGPL.
HOWEVER, I can not commit this directly as I need to get the permission of all previous contributors ( @wyattferguson and @Bubbl33s ) to relicense their contributions.
If you contributed to PyPositron and agree to have your contributions MIT-licensed, include the following statement on a comment:
(This does not mean that it has to be only MIT-licensed if we later decide to use Apache 2.0)
If you don't want the project (or your contributions specifically) to be MIT-licensed (perfectly fine!), comment why and what other license to use instead (not including the above statement in your comment).
@wyattferguson , @Bubbl33s and any other contributors: Please read the PR description and agree or disagree to the re-licensing.