-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 85
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
Relicense under MIT? #89
Labels
Comments
Panquesito7
added
help wanted
Extra attention is needed
question
Further information is requested
in-discussion
labels
Feb 9, 2024
I'm going to assume the 👍 is a yes. Let me know if I'm wrong, though. Thanks. |
Agree
…On Sun, 11 Feb 2024, 06:38 David Leal, ***@***.***> wrote:
I'm going to assume the 👍 is a yes. Let me know if I'm wrong, though.
Thanks.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#89 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AO7PIG5Y44FASVQSUKVZS4DYTAKXHAVCNFSM6AAAAABDCHFOCOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSMZXGM3TSNJSHE>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Agreed. |
sgtm |
Agree |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
Description
The GNU LGPLv2.1 is more suited for libraries, and I'm not sure this is the license we want for this project.
We should give the most freedom to everyone without any problems, as long as they give credit.
What do you think about relicensing the whole project under MIT? It's a much more permissive license as well as simple and short. I'm not a lawyer, but I think we need to ask all the contributors to agree to relicense the project under a different license (in this case, MIT).
Contributors that have agreed to relicensing under MIT
Let me know if you agree to this below. Thanks! 🙂
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: