Is LinuxFromScratch already taken? Or is that too pretentious since this is actually just ALFS?
On Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 1:20 PM Pierre Labastie <[email protected]> wrote: > On 21/04/2019 18:07, Jeremy Huntwork wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 11:37 AM Pierre Labastie > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> I've read a little more about this [1], and wants to summarize here > what I > >> understand. Note that I've not checked that what I say is valid in > countries > >> other than US (I've just seen yesterday, when looking at W3m, that a > true open > >> source license is impossible in Japan). jhalfs has been based in US > from its > >> beginning, so let us consider it is under the US law: > >> - All contributors are copyright holders. There's no need to register > to be a > >> copyright holder, and there is no notion of a minimum contribution to > be a > >> copyright holder. Actually, all contributors have made substantial > >> contributions, so the point about minimal contribution is not relevant > here. > >> - If there is no license, nobody has right to use, distribute, modify, > parts > >> he or she has not written, unless given explicit permission! Even other > >> contributors have no right to modify what is already written! This is > the aim > >> of the license to relax such permissions. > >> - Jeremy, the initiator of the project has chosen the GPLv2 license, so > all > >> contributions are under this license. Changing to another license is > possible > >> only if the new license is compatible with the previous one, unless the > >> copyright holders agree to change to an incompatible license. Here, the > only > >> compatible license is GPLv3. AGPLv3 is not (too restrictive), LGPLv3 is > not > >> (too permissive), and other common licenses (MIT, Apache, Mozilla) are > too > >> permissive too. At this point, we have two possibilities: > >> - go to GPLv3 (or keep GLPv2, but it is not well suited to modern > ways of > >> collaborating). > >> - Ask the seven contributors whether they accept a more permissive > license > >> (I would push for MIT. Other licenses are not very sensible for > jhalfs). > > > > My preference would be to try this first, seeking permission to move > > to MIT. If that fails what issue is there with keeping GPLv2? I > > believe a move to Github does not really impact the license and I'm > > not really a huge fan of GPLv3, although admittedly it's been a while > > since I looked at its details. Overall, I think it's just more complex > > that it needs to be. I like the simplicity of MIT or BSD licenses. > > > >> - Gihub has two types of repo: > >> - private, means a few collaborators (maximum of 4 with free > github) can > >> access the repository, but it is not visible to anybody else > >> - public, means it is visible to anybody, and anybody can be given > commits > >> right, but there are again to possibilities: > >> - owned by an individual, who has all the administrative rights. > >> - owned by an organization. Means there may be several owners, > which > >> may give various rights to users (administration, commit, etc, > I've > >> not read it in full yet) > > > > Private would make it hard to collaborate and I think kind of defeats > > the purpose. Given the history of ALFS, I'd say an organization (you > > can create one and invite others to be admins) makes the most sense. > > OK, I'll send a mail to all the other five contributors (I think I can > consider having Jeremy's agreement, and mine). I agree with creating an > organization. Ideas for name? > > Pierre > -- > http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/alfs-discuss > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ > Unsubscribe: See the above information page >
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/alfs-discuss FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
