apache-2.0 #582
apache-2.0 #582
Conversation
|
Seems good, anything blocking this? |
|
Is there any reason for this PR and #587 to be on hold? |
| same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier | ||
| identification within third-party archives. | ||
|
|
||
| Copyright {yyyy} {name of copyright owner} |
|
This looks ok to merge once line mentioned in comment is fixed. |
|
I am very sorry to be a pain but is this approved by all people listed in https://github.com/choojs/choo/graphs/contributors? I think this is needed to switch from MIT to Apache 2.0 license. Bootstrap had to go through this kind of process to move from Apache 2.0 to MIT (needed to integrate with Drupal which is GPL v2) as discussed in twbs/bootstrap#2054 (see also [1]). As described in twbs/bootstrap#2054 (comment) they did have to revert and redo a few commits to do this properly. As another example NPX has to go through the same thing to switch from CC0 to ISC license [2]. I would personally favor just adding Apache 2.0 license option if it is possible to get the needed approval. Apache 2.0 only license could be an issue in case of Drupal and other GPL v2 frameworks as discussed in twbs/bootstrap#2054. [1] https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/6097/how-does-bootstrap-v4-mit-deal-with-contributions-made-under-v3-apache-2-0 |
|
That requirement sounds a bit silly, particularly if someone only PRd a typo a year ago, but for what it's worth, it's good by me! |
6 participants
Changes the Choo license to Apache 2 as per choojs/discuss#1. Thanks!