relicense from AGPL to MIT

[daroczig]

Although I thought (10+ years ago) that AGPL-3 effectively addressed the potential issue of SaaS companies taking advantage of open-source software without contributing back, the licensing terms seem to be confusing and interpreted differently by orgs and lawyers. Given the multiple requests from the past years I've received to relicense to a more permissive license, and my current belief that logger does not benefit from the restrictions of AGPL -- I am hereby starting the relicensing process to MIT.

To do so, I need approval from all copyright holders (past contributors):

• @Polkas
• @hadley
• @philaris
• @amy17519
• @deeenes
• @MichaelChirico
• @artemklevtsov
• @stPhena
• @earino
• @averissimo
• @jozefhajnala
• @atheriel
• @pawelru
• @aaelony
• @terashim
• @DanChaltiel
• @burgikukac
• @kpagacz
• @tdeenes

I know this is painful and boring, but the relicensing can only happen if I get acceptance from everyone, so please kindly reply below stating:

I accept the change of logger's license to MIT.

Otherwise, please feel free to let me know your concerns, questions etc.

Thanks for your past contributions and your help in this process as well!

[MichaelChirico]

I accept the change of logger's license to MIT.

Thank you for this, I can attest that google has a by-strict-exception-only policy for AGPL third party code: https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy

[burgikukac]

I accept the change of logger's license to MIT.

[tdeenes]

I accept the change of logger's license to MIT.

[aaelony]

I accept the change of logger's license to MIT.On Aug 4, 2024, at 15:29, Gergely Daróczi ***@***.***> wrote: Although I thought (10+ years ago) that AGPL-3 effectively addressed the potential issue of SaaS companies taking advantage of open-source software without contributing back, the licensing terms seem to be confusing and interpreted differently by orgs and lawyers. Given the multiple requests from the past years I've received to relicense to a more permissive license, and my current belief that logger does not benefit from the restrictions of AGPL -- I am hereby starting the relicensing process to MIT. To do so, I need approval from all copyright holders (past contributors): @Polkas @hadley @philaris @amy17519 @deeenes @MichaelChirico @artemklevtsov @stPhena @earino @averissimo @jozefhajnala @atheriel @pawelru @aaelony @terashim @DanChaltiel @burgikukac @kpagacz @tdeenes I know this is painful and boring, but the relicensing can only happen if I get acceptance from everyone, so please kindly reply below stating: I accept the change of logger's license to MIT. Otherwise, please feel free to let me know your concerns, questions etc. Thanks for your past contributions and your help in this process as well! —Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[atheriel]

I accept the change of logger's license to MIT.

In the past I've cited the AGPL as a reason to avoid this package for corporate Shiny apps, so happy to see it change. R community norms are strongly in favour of folks contributing back regardless of license, too.

[hadley]

Approved!

[DanChaltiel]

I accept the change of logger's license to MIT.

[pawelru]

I accept the change of logger's license to MIT.

[philaris]

I accept the change of logger's license to MIT.

[stPhena]

I accept the change of logger's license to MIT.

[Polkas]

@daroczig thank you for your contributions, and I am happy to see you more in open source world now:)

I accept the change of logger's license to MIT.

[kpagacz]

Nicely done :)

I accept the change of logger's license to MIT.

[jozefhajnala]

I accept the change of logger's license to MIT.

…

On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 12:29 AM Gergely Daróczi ***@***.***> wrote: Although I thought (10+ years ago) that AGPL-3 effectively addressed the potential issue of SaaS companies taking advantage of open-source software without contributing back, the licensing terms seem to be confusing and interpreted differently by orgs and lawyers. Given the multiple requests from the past years I've received to relicense to a more permissive license, and my current belief that logger does not benefit from the restrictions of AGPL -- I am hereby starting the relicensing process to MIT. To do so, I need approval from all copyright holders (past contributors <https://github.com/daroczig/logger/graphs/contributors>): - @Polkas <https://github.com/Polkas> - @hadley <https://github.com/hadley> - @philaris <https://github.com/philaris> - @amy17519 <https://github.com/amy17519> - @deeenes <https://github.com/deeenes> - @MichaelChirico <https://github.com/MichaelChirico> - @artemklevtsov <https://github.com/artemklevtsov> - @stPhena <https://github.com/stPhena> - @earino <https://github.com/earino> - @averissimo <https://github.com/averissimo> - @jozefhajnala <https://github.com/jozefhajnala> - @atheriel <https://github.com/atheriel> - @pawelru <https://github.com/pawelru> - @aaelony <https://github.com/aaelony> - @terashim <https://github.com/terashim> - @DanChaltiel <https://github.com/DanChaltiel> - @burgikukac <https://github.com/burgikukac> - @kpagacz <https://github.com/kpagacz> - @tdeenes <https://github.com/tdeenes> I know this is painful and boring, but the relicensing can only happen if I get acceptance from everyone, so *please kindly reply below* stating: I accept the change of logger's license to MIT. Otherwise, please feel free to let me know your concerns, questions etc. Thanks for your past contributions and your help in this process as well! — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#172>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFQTO3NLOZTKL3NFVA3SEFTZP2TNRAVCNFSM6AAAAABL7GK2J6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGQ2DOMZSGE3TMMQ> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[artemklevtsov]

I accept the change of logger's license to MIT.

[deeenes]

Fine by me! :)