Relicensing Sparkle to something more permissive? #12
Labels
No labels
bug
discussion
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
good first issue
help wanted
invalid
Jameson
joke
options window
question
Split!
wontfix
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set
Reference
sparkle-devs/sparkle-old-migration#12
Loading…
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
For people who want to fork Sparkle for personal or business use, a strong copyleft license like the GPLv3 could prove quite cumbersome. @e016 @codingisfun2831t @Bubgamer07 What do you think about relicensing to one of the Apache, MIT, or BSD licenses?
Yeah, MIT sounds good. I originally chose GPLv3 as it was the same license as Snap!
Hold on, isn't Snap! AGPLv3?
Oh right. Still, similar!
@e016 @Bubgamer07 Still waiting on your input here...
I don't care too much about the license as long as it lets people fork your work without hassle. I usually use a GPL license; although it's up to you!
That's convenient, actually, because the MIT license is way friendlier to forking than the GPL ever was!
@Bubgamer07 Just waiting on you and we can go through with this.
Hold on... @Bubgamer07's only contribution is to the API.md page. Let me see if I can rewrite the affected sections to effectively remove their copyright control over that document.