Can you make the license on this MIT?

[tony]

I can't use any form of GPL at work (including LGPL). Even if it was possible, the handling considerations wouldn't be worth it for a plugin. A few months ago I had a remote worker try to borrow code from an LGPL plugin for a project, thinking "hey it's open source, and freedom". Its not easy to convey the ramification of creating a derivative work.

pytest itself is MIT.

[schollii]

On May 24, 2016 06:39, "Tony Narlock" notifications@github.com wrote:

I can't use any form of GPL at work (including LGPL). Even if it was
possible, the handling considerations wouldn't be worth it for a plugin. A
few months ago I had a remote worker try to borrow code from an LGPL plugin
for a project, thinking "hey it's open source, and freedom". Its not easy
to convey the ramification of creating a derivative work.

pytest itself is MIT.

This only matters if you want to distribute your library and it is packaged
with the plugin, is it your case?
Oliver

[The-Compiler]

Note this would probably also require the consent of all contributors as far as I know - while that's probably doable with 13 people, it's still somewhat of a hassle.

[nicoddemus]

Myself in my newest projects have followed pytest's example and use MIT, so personally I wouldn't mind. But @The-Compiler is right of course, we should ask consent for all contributors. Perhaps a poll on this thread is enough to obtain consent from everyone? What do you guys think?

[tony]

I think the quotation of the email above is broken.

This only matters if you want to distribute your library and it is packaged
with the plugin, is it your case?

I could go expound on this if you like. I think the onus should rest upon the one backing the more sophisticated license to justify it. GPL is not backward compatible unfortunately.

Note this would probably also require the consent of all contributors as far as I know - while that's probably doable with 13 people, it's still somewhat of a hassle.

I think the earlier its done the better. As a stop-gap, you can also add to the README that after 68f7968 (for example) all future commits are licensed MIT.

[The-Compiler]

@nicoddemus As far as I know, other projects handled this by mentioning all people in an issue (like this one) and asking them to respond if they agree with adopting the new license. Should I do so?

@tony With all due respect, if you want to change the license of a project people work on in their free time, it's your job to explain the rationale behind doing so, and not the other way around. 😄

FWIW to tick that one off, I'm okay with relicensing my contribution (deleting a file, heh) under the MIT license.

[nicoddemus]

As far as I know, other projects handled this by mentioning all people in an issue (like this one) and asking them to respond if they agree with adopting the new license.

That's exactly what I had in mind, sorry for not being clearer. 😁

Should I do so?

Yes, thanks! I was planning on doing this tonight, but if you got some minutes to spare I would appreciate it. 😄

[tony]

project people work on in their free time,

I think the biggest piece of gratitude you can get (other than money) is that someone using your software. I spent the past few days converting projects from unittest to py.test and apparently am quite happy prompt-toolkit/pyvim#35 (comment)

With all due respect, if you want to change the license of a project people work on in their free time, it's your job to explain the rationale behind doing so, and not the other way around. 😄

I offered to elaborate. 😄

I have before: ScottDuckworth/python-anyvcs#32, urwid/urwid#41, django-wiki/django-wiki#454, ycm-core/ycmd#139, pypa/pip#3441, jgm/peg-markdown#35, saitoha/canossa#1

Various outcomes.

[nicoddemus]

Thanks for the links, interesting reading. 😁

[nicoddemus]

Here's the list of contributors:

• @fogo
• @jurko-gospodnetic
• @asfaltboy
• @tigarmo
• @satyrius
• @Chronial
• @The-Compiler
• @rouge8
• @jespino
• @RonnyPfannschmidt
• @jayvdb
• @blueyed
• @marcwebbie

Guys does any of don't agree to change pytest-mock license from GPL3 to MIT in the next release?

[Chronial]

Fine by me.

[jespino]

My contribution in this project is really small (a typo fix), so of course, I agree with the change 😃

[tigarmo]

You have my permission too, of course!

Tiago

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Jesús Espino notifications@github.com
wrote:

My contribution in this project is really small (a typo fix), so of
course, I agree with the change 😃

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#45 (comment)

[fogo]

MIT license, here we go!

[RonnyPfannschmidt]

fine by me

[blueyed]

Fine by me!

[asfaltboy]

me too, no problemo

[nicoddemus]

OK, thanks everyone!

I will change pytest-mock license to MIT in the 1.1 release, making sure to mention that prominently on the CHANGELOG.

[The-Compiler]

I'd recommend changing the license in the repo ASAP, to make sure new contributors are aware of what license they're licensing their contributions under (in case there should be new people between now and 1.1).

[nicoddemus]

Oh thanks, good point, I will do that later.