[4/4] License under dual MIT/Apache-2.0 #2079

est31 · 2017-07-25T00:52:00Z

This is a sign-off issue as per RFC 2044 (tracking issue) to license the rust-lang/rfcs repo under dual Apache2/MIT licensing terms.

You are receiving this notification because you have contributed to this repo.

For a discussion on why this move is desired, please see the RFC's text.

While smaller changes can't be copyrighted by law, its non-trivial to find out with certainity whether a given change falls under copyright or not, due to the nature of the matter. Therefore I'm asking you to agree to the new terms even if you consider your contributions to be not copyrightable.

To minimize noise in your inbox, let me use this opportunity to ask those among you who have unmerged RFCs in the queue to add a license header to your RFC drafts. In a few days/weeks I'll go through the list of open RFCs and ask for license headers to be added for the remaining RFCs that lack headers. The RFC's text contains the precise header (and has one already itself). Filing PRs to add headers to your already merged RFCs is not required, they will get headers in bulk.

Checkoff

To agree to the licensing terms, please comment with:

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Thank you!

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

withoutboats · 2017-07-25T00:58:20Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

solson · 2017-07-25T00:58:43Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

SergioBenitez · 2017-07-25T00:59:03Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Stebalien · 2017-07-25T00:59:43Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

tomprince · 2017-07-25T01:16:50Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

seanmonstar · 2017-07-25T01:18:46Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

tbu- · 2017-07-25T01:28:39Z

I think the following copy-paste licensing terms would be more appropriate:

I license my past contributions to the Rust RFC repository under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

This specifies which contributions your re-license (the ones to the Rust RFC repository), and that you're talking about the past contributions that need to be relicensed. Future contributions will be handled by the then-stated copyright of the whole repository

tbu- · 2017-07-25T01:29:30Z

I license my past contributions to the Rust RFC repository under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

est31 · 2017-07-25T02:50:37Z

I license my past contributions to the Rust RFC repository under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

Using that sentence is okay as well! I'd say "to the Rust RFC repository" is implied in the one I've suggested...

xen0n · 2017-07-25T02:52:08Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

xen0n · 2017-07-25T02:53:53Z

(Side note: choose is misspelled in the original sentence but I think the acknowledgement should be verbatim in case the verification process is done by strcmp.)

sfackler · 2017-07-25T03:10:34Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

shepmaster · 2017-07-25T03:21:12Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

swashcap · 2017-07-25T05:13:47Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

kud1ing · 2017-07-25T05:38:27Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

scottmcm · 2017-07-25T06:36:52Z

I license my past contributions to the Rust RFC repository under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

ghost · 2017-07-25T08:02:41Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

SimonSapin · 2017-07-25T08:07:53Z

I license my past contributions to the Rust RFC repository under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

tari · 2017-07-25T08:12:27Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

tshepang · 2017-07-25T08:28:26Z

I license my past contributions to the Rust RFC repository under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

thepowersgang · 2017-07-25T09:32:33Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

WiSaGaN · 2017-07-25T10:10:47Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

ghost · 2017-07-25T10:31:58Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

zackw · 2017-07-25T11:50:57Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

sgrif · 2017-07-25T11:55:42Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

steveklabnik · 2017-07-25T12:59:34Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

killercup · 2017-07-25T14:01:42Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

untitaker · 2017-07-25T14:16:42Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

strega-nil · 2017-07-25T14:28:09Z

I license past and future contributions under either the MIT or Apache 2.0 license; licensees may choose either at their option.

sanxiyn · 2017-07-26T08:44:36Z

I license my past contributions to the Rust RFC repository under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

snocl · 2017-07-27T14:58:20Z

I license my past contributions to the Rust RFC repository under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

ticki · 2017-07-27T19:42:59Z

~~I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.~~

I license my past contributions to the Rust RFC repository under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

vadimcn · 2017-07-27T19:55:58Z

I license my past contributions to the Rust RFC repository under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

ghost · 2017-07-29T14:06:57Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

bluss · 2017-07-29T14:12:44Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

XMPPwocky · 2017-07-29T16:31:26Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. On Jul 29, 2017 7:12 AM, "bluss" <[email protected]> wrote: I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2079 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABMVaoifeiQ3qxq71ZFVdFzhP8iJ9dorks5sSz3ggaJpZM4Oh7xZ> .

erkinalp · 2017-08-02T18:58:08Z

I prefer MIT only. Apache should be left for actual implementation.

wycats · 2017-08-03T00:04:40Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Nokel81 · 2017-08-05T13:19:16Z

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

ticki · 2017-08-05T21:22:58Z

cc @tomjakubowski

est31 · 2017-08-13T23:33:37Z

Friendly ping @zwarich

est31 · 2017-10-28T15:14:48Z

I've checked the mark for @zwarich, they have been employee of Mozilla: https://linkedin.com/in/cameronzwarich

Centril · 2018-04-26T07:28:46Z

Triage ping: cc @tomjakubowski

Centril · 2018-10-08T08:37:59Z

Triage ping: cc @tomjakubowski

Dylan-DPC-zz · 2019-12-23T07:57:10Z

@tomjakubowski waiting for you to consent to this

est31 mentioned this issue Jul 25, 2017

Tracking issue for RFC 2044: dual-MIT/Apache2 licensing rust-lang/rust#43461

Open

7 tasks

This was referenced Aug 5, 2017

RFC: Allow Irrefutable Patterns in if-let and while-let statements #2086

Merged

Licensing sign off issue for first time contributors #2096

Closed

Centril added the T-core Relevant to the core team, which will review and decide on the RFC. label Feb 23, 2018

ianjdarrow mentioned this issue Jan 25, 2019

Proposal to update license to MIT/Apache-2 ipfs/team-mgmt#849

Open

[4/4] License under dual MIT/Apache-2.0 #2079

[4/4] License under dual MIT/Apache-2.0 #2079

Comments

est31 commented Jul 25, 2017 • edited Loading

Checkoff

withoutboats commented Jul 25, 2017

solson commented Jul 25, 2017

SergioBenitez commented Jul 25, 2017

Stebalien commented Jul 25, 2017

tomprince commented Jul 25, 2017

seanmonstar commented Jul 25, 2017

tbu- commented Jul 25, 2017

tbu- commented Jul 25, 2017

est31 commented Jul 25, 2017

xen0n commented Jul 25, 2017

xen0n commented Jul 25, 2017

sfackler commented Jul 25, 2017

shepmaster commented Jul 25, 2017

swashcap commented Jul 25, 2017

kud1ing commented Jul 25, 2017

scottmcm commented Jul 25, 2017

ghost commented Jul 25, 2017

SimonSapin commented Jul 25, 2017

tari commented Jul 25, 2017

tshepang commented Jul 25, 2017

thepowersgang commented Jul 25, 2017

WiSaGaN commented Jul 25, 2017

ghost commented Jul 25, 2017

zackw commented Jul 25, 2017

sgrif commented Jul 25, 2017

steveklabnik commented Jul 25, 2017

killercup commented Jul 25, 2017

untitaker commented Jul 25, 2017

strega-nil commented Jul 25, 2017

sanxiyn commented Jul 26, 2017

snocl commented Jul 27, 2017

ticki commented Jul 27, 2017 • edited Loading

vadimcn commented Jul 27, 2017

ghost commented Jul 29, 2017

bluss commented Jul 29, 2017

XMPPwocky commented Jul 29, 2017 via email

erkinalp commented Aug 2, 2017 • edited Loading

wycats commented Aug 3, 2017

Nokel81 commented Aug 5, 2017

ticki commented Aug 5, 2017

est31 commented Aug 13, 2017

est31 commented Oct 28, 2017 • edited Loading

Centril commented Apr 26, 2018

Centril commented Oct 8, 2018

Dylan-DPC-zz commented Dec 23, 2019

est31 commented Jul 25, 2017 •

edited

Loading

ticki commented Jul 27, 2017 •

edited

Loading

erkinalp commented Aug 2, 2017 •

edited

Loading

est31 commented Oct 28, 2017 •

edited

Loading