-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
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
Small Licensing Question #28
Comments
It used to be my default license, I sadly didn't think too much about it when I set up this repo. I wouldn't mind relicensing to something more permissive whatsoever, probably MIT. Most of the code is from @Koenari and me, we could probably reach out to the other people that have contributed and get their approval. |
I do not mind switching the license to MIT. I personally default to MIT now. |
I approve of switching to MIT. |
I updated the issue with a list of all contributors that github shows, so it is easier to track who has responded. Hope that helps |
I wasn't in the list but I am down as a contributor (super minor) so for what it's worth, I too approve of switching to MIT. |
Hey, thank you for reaching out. I do not mind the switch either, MIT sounds good. |
Sure, also approve of switching to MIT. |
I approve of the switch! Thanks for gathering input, even from tiny contributors like me. |
Sounds good to me! I approve of switching to MIT 👍 |
MIT is good with me too. Thanks for reaching out to confirm. |
Netstone itself is AGPLv3 licensed which requires you to publish all your sourcecode, including your own application even across process boundaries, on request, when users can access it.
Other lodestoneparsers like nodestone or gostone are mit-licensed.
is there a specific reason that only netstone is licensed under a strong copy-left license and those other parsers are licensed in a less restrictive way?
Update:
List of contributors:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: