-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 92
Relicense under Apache 2.0 #227
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
Comments
@adriaanm legally, can we do this? |
Yes, assuming signed CLAs for all contributors since modularization
…On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 15:58 Seth Tisue ***@***.***> wrote:
@adriaanm <https://github.com/adriaanm> legally, can we do this?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#227 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFjyw-H0cbiAY4G8VEn-FU_7CLSQPObks5uAj38gaJpZM4UN_Zh>
.
|
It seems like nearly all contributors since modularization (1 Jan 2013?) are also contributors to Scala, and therefore are recent and familiar faces that likely have a CLA on file. It wouldn't be hard to find the few exceptions to that group, and work on tracking them down and signing the CLA. |
I mined the git history starting from 2013-07-17, and I've contacted a dozen contributors who I presumed didn't have a CLA on file. I've heard back from about half of them, so far. I'll report back whether I hear back from the rest. Here's the form letter I'm sending.
|
https://github.com/scala/scala-xml/wiki/Contributor-guide mentions the old license |
https://contributors.scala-lang.org/t/moving-to-the-apache-v2-0-license/1859
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: