[yt-dev] Finalizing the license switch

[Matthew Turk]

Hi all,

I've screwed up and accidentally pushed the entire changesets to the repo.

PLEASE do not touch the repo for a bit -- no PR acceptance, etc etc --
as I am going to try to get the changeset stripped as it really should
be verified and vetted first.  I'm emailing BB support, as the strip
task is failing for me presently.

-Matt

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm writing about the licensing situation.  A while back we had a
> discussion about transitioning to BSD 3-clause.  Here is the progress
> on that:
>
>  * I have received (offline or online) consent from everyone listed on
> the spreadsheet.
>  * The ARTIO headers in yt-3.0 will be licensed under the LGPL, which
> we will note in a file at the top level.
>  * Kacper has moved in the main yt repository all of the external
> dependencies to an extern/ directory.  This also isolates some of the
> LGPL code.
>  * The rockstar wrapping code will need to be removed before
> relicensing can occur.  (I believe -- Rockstar itself is GPL.)  I have
> created a fork of Rockstar's source code that will bundle the yt
> interface.
>  * Everyone has consented to the shared copyright model, similar to
> what IPython does.
>  * One or two additional people have contributed since my initial
> spreadsheet was made, and I am tracking them down presently.
>
> Unless I hear any objections, I will issue pull requests to both 2.x
> and 3.0 that:
>
>  * Remove the Rockstar wrapping code
>  * Removes the GPLv3 license, replacing with 3-clause BSD
>  * Removes all attributions that include affiliations and replaces
> with a collective copyright header, similar to what IPython does:
> http://ipython.org/ipython-doc/dev/about/license_and_copyright.html  I
> am still not sure if we want authors listed in individual files, but I
> am certain we do not want the full author/affiliation/years/copyright.
>  * Include the copyright information at the top level of the source repository
>  * Notes that the ExtJS code itself is GPL, but we do not "link"
> against it directly in the code shipped in the yt source distribution,
> instead using a <script> tag to include it in an HTML file.
>
> I will also update the website and documentation to note the change in
> license and write a blog post summarizing the discussion.  We may also
> want to issue a point release just for the change in license, although
> I would prefer to issue a 2.6 at some point with the license change.
>
> I'm going to begin preparing this potentially as early as today, but
> the pull request will not need to be accepted immediately; it can
> wait, and perhaps even be rejected depending on discussion.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Matt