Skip to content
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

[FEATURE] Change to a standard licence #35

Closed
bruce34 opened this issue Feb 7, 2020 · 6 comments · Fixed by #37
Closed

[FEATURE] Change to a standard licence #35

bruce34 opened this issue Feb 7, 2020 · 6 comments · Fixed by #37

Comments

@bruce34
Copy link

bruce34 commented Feb 7, 2020

I'd like to be able to use this formula as part of DevOps within a company, hosting it on our own git servers (for reasons of no external dependencies), possibly having the ability to change the files as well without having to post them externally (although I'd obviously be happy to provide PR for genuinely usefull additions). IANAL means that I cannot be sure whether the extra clause in the licence file conflicts with our use case.

Even a reply here placating these concerns, again because IANAL, means I still don't know whether we can use it.

The simplest for us would be a change of the LICENSE to be a standard Apache Licence as most other saltstack formulas are.

Section I'd like removed:
EXCEPTIONS:
You MAY NOT upload parts or the whole work of this product on Github or
any other platform again UNLESS you are in possession of an agreement
by the author OR use the function called "FORK" provided on Github itself.
Other parts of the specified license above are not affected.

@aboe76
Copy link
Member

aboe76 commented Feb 7, 2020

@bruce34 you should ask @tinuva about this.

@javierbertoli
Copy link
Member

IANAL either, but I think @tinuva meant to prevent people from copying the formula and uploading it to any PUBLIC platform loosing the history and attributions to the original author/s. I'm deducing that from the UNLESS clause (ask for permission to do it or use FORK, which ensures him the history is preserved).

I don't think @tinuva has any issue with private forking/using/modifying but, in the end, I agree with @aboe76 that @tinuva is the one to answer this in the end.

And I agree with you that changing to a license and permissions similar to those used in the other formulas would be a "Good Thing (TM)".

@tinuva
Copy link
Collaborator

tinuva commented Feb 8, 2020

I think this is a fair request and am happy to remove the 'EXCEPTIONS' section.

This formula has gone much further than I ever anticipated and since I no longer work as much with Saltstack as I have in the past, I believe its in the best interest of everyone to sync the license to the same default license used in other formulas.

I have already synced up this repository to my own. Give me a day or so and I will update the license and create a pullrequest here.

@tinuva tinuva mentioned this issue Feb 11, 2020
19 tasks
@myii myii closed this as completed in #37 Feb 12, 2020
@myii
Copy link
Member

myii commented Feb 12, 2020

@bruce34 Thanks to @tinuva in #37, this formula is now using a standardised license without any exceptions.

@saltstack-formulas-travis

🎉 This issue has been resolved in version 0.8.0 🎉

The release is available on GitHub release

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀

@bruce34
Copy link
Author

bruce34 commented Feb 25, 2020

Perfect - thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

6 participants