I have licensed the code of the imag codebase under the terms of LGPL 2.1. Turns out, I cannot link libraries which are licensed under GPL 2.0 for example - for example the version crate where I opened an issue and requested a relicensing of the crate. I removed the dependency though.
Either way, having this restriction (cannot link to GPL code) is not nice. I’d like to avoid that restriction. That’s why I think of relicensing imag.
License to relicense to
I made the code LGPL in the first place because I care about copyleft. I want contributors to have to share modifications to the original code. That’s why MIT and Apache2 are not a solution for me.
Though, MPL2.0 looks perfect to me.
Any comments on that?
I already opened a tracking issue for the relicensing part. Some questions remain:
- Do I need to contact all contributors, or only contributors which have code in the latest
masterof the codebase?
- What if a contributor does not respond? If the “only code in master counts” from above applies, I can rewrite their parts and everything is fine, but what if this does not apply?
- Can I ask contributors to hand over copyright to me if they want? Something like “You can either say 'Yes, I am willing to relicense my contributions to ’ or you can say 'Yes, I hand over all contributions I made to @musicmatze” (so all future license changes/etc are possible without asking them anymore).
That could be a good idea as at least one contributor already told me that I can do whatever I want with his code contributions.
- How to ask them? I would reach out via Email and wait for replies. Some (three) of the contributors had university emails in their git configuration during their contributions which might not be available anymore. Luckily these contributions could be considered “trivial”.
I’d love to hear your opinions and comments on that.
For all: IANAL!