enumerate all contributors to the specs repo and tag them here

[dhuseby]

This tags all contributors new since August of 2019, to notify them that we are un-archiving of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. The goal is to firmly establish that as the original and historical license is also the current license for specification contributions.

If you are tagged here, then your first contribution to the libp2p specs repo happened after when the previous license was archived in 2019. This is just to notify you that we are unarchiving the license and re-asserting that all contributions here are governed by the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license.

This is to just notify all of you in a best effort.

I'm collecting thumbs up from everybody listed here.

The plan is to unarchive the license on 1 November, 2025.

Also, @mxinden is rock star 👨‍🎤

[Mubelotix]

Sure I'll thumbs up, but unless we ALL explicitly agree then you are blocked, this isn't how licensing works

[dhuseby]

Sure I'll thumbs up, but unless we ALL explicitly agree then you are blocked, this isn't how licensing works

I disagree. This repo has a license. It was just archived. We're unarchiving it, I'm just notifying the contributors since the license was archived as a best effort.

[Nzen]

Sure I'll thumbs up, but unless we ALL explicitly agree then you are blocked, this isn't how licensing works

That's not quite true. This list of contributors includes people who did not contribute code changes, like me. I strongly suspect that I commented in a github issue, as I don't see evidence of an actual commit.

[alkeryn]

hmm, i think i commented on issues but i don't think i ever contributed code to the project.

[marten-seemann]

I find it hard to believe that I've never contributed to this repo.

[xiaoliwe]

Same, and gotta over 40 notifications today......

[MircoT]

I have never contributed to this... I suspect @dhuseby just mentioned all users have starred the project...

[rkuhn]

This is not how licensing works and I strongly suspect you know it (given your phrasing of the issue).

Every nontrivial contribution is a (derived) work for which the author holds the copyrights. If your contribution process didn't transfer those rights then they still lie with the authors.

This repo currently does not have a stated license. There may have been a license earlier, but it was deleted. The git operation is called git-rm, not “archive”. There is no license to un-archive at this point. What you are trying to do is to add a new license statement to the repo (which may look exactly like an earlier one that was then removed, but this is immaterial for all contributions made without the license statement). This cannot be done by you notifying some random people. If you want to do this, you need to find all authors of nontrivial works contributed here and ask for their permission.

So you basically did what is required, but you lied about what you were doing. This dishonesty is despicable. Why in God's name did you find it necessary to do so?

[Icarus9913]

I find it hard to believe that I've never contributed to this repo.

@marten-seemann Actually, there's no doubt you're the legend of this product 🥇🥇🥇

[elecbug]

Well, I'm a little confused. I was excited to get an email from the libp2p team, but the situation seems to be chaotic right now. :P

[hamamo]

@everyone-confused (like me): You're probably being notified of this issue because you're watching this project, not necessarily because you're a contributor. If you're not affected, it might be easiest to unsubscribe notifications for this issue and be done with it. Or un-watch the project if you don't have any continued interest in it.

[mosi-sol]

Sure I'll thumbs up, but unless we ALL explicitly agree then you are blocked, this isn't how licensing works

That's not quite true. This list of contributors includes people who did not contribute code changes, like me. I strongly suspect that I commented in a github issue, as I don't see evidence of an actual commit.

I'm not contributed too, why mentioned my account here!?🙈

Msg 4 proof