Repository license should be one of the GNU family of licenses

[kestewart]

Hi Trevor,
If we want the FSF to pick this up and use it, the license should probably be changed to GPL-3.0-or-later, or something from their family.

Is this possible?

Thanks, Kate

[wking]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 11:43:20PM -0700, Kate Stewart wrote: If we want the FSF to pick this up and use it, the license should probably be changed to GPL-3.0-or-later, or something from their family.

There's not much going on in pull.py, so I don't see a big downside to allowing proprietary forks. Who would bother, and even if they did, would the FSF care? The licensing for the generated data in the gh-pages branch, if its copyrightable at all, probably inherits the FSF's CC-BY-ND-4.0 from [1], possibly with some MIT mixed in due to pull.py (e.g. for the schema/ JSON-LD). Hopefully the FSF either agrees that it's not copyrightable (I don't copy any of their opinion text) or doesn't mind too much about this particular derivative work. And, even if we don't officially relicense pull.py, is that script really how the FSF would choose to maintain it's API? I'd expect them to turn our: HTML -(pull.py)→ JSON scraping around and use: JSON -(generator)→ HTML If there's anything in the JSON schema itself that they consider copyrightable, that would probably be the only thing that would survive a transition to FSF ownership. That said, I'm happy to relicence my contributions here under whatever license if the FSF has a preference. I expect @goneall (who's contributed ef88572 via #3) will feel the same way. @goneall? [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

[goneall]

Agree with all of the above - I am quite flexible on the licensing.

The data is being used by the LicenseListPublisher (licensed under the Apache 2.0 license), but the code itself is not referenced or included.