License switch

[PetitPotiron]

Dear contributors,

@MRakox
@twlite
@Shadowv7
@josetrindade1
@TheTechRobo
@7coil
@edward3h

I open this issue to request a License switch.

The current License of this project is CC-BY-NC-SA. It means:
You can do whatever you want with the code, if only you:

• attribute
• do not use it commercially
• publish the work under the same license

However, the CreativeCommons licenses are not well suited for open-source development. Creative Commons (CC) licenses are designed primarily for creative works such as art, literature, and educational materials. While they offer flexibility in sharing and remixing content, they have many flaws for open-source softwares. Here are the main reasons:

• While CC licenses allow for adaptations, they do not clearly define how software modifications should be handled, which is crucial in software development.
• Many open-source licenses, like the GNU General Public License (GPL) or the MIT License, are designed to be compatible with each other. CC licenses can create compatibility issues when combining works under different licenses, making it difficult to integrate or redistribute software.
• Open-source licenses often include disclaimers of warranty and liability, protecting developers from legal issues arising from the use of their software. CC licenses do not typically include such disclaimers, which can expose creators to legal risks.
• CC licenses emphasize attribution and sharing, which may not align with the collaborative nature of open-source development. Open-source licenses encourage contributions and collaboration among developers, fostering a community-driven approach.
• CC licenses are very uncommon in the open-source universe, which leads to misunderstandings at best, and conflicts at worse. Such licenses really prevents many potential contributors to contribute.
• CC licenses are unclear if they take the work as a whole or not.

These limitations make CC licenses less suitable for software projects, where the need for clear guidelines on source code, modifications, and legal protections is paramount. Open-source licenses are specifically tailored to address these needs, fostering a more effective environment for software development.

So, given these reasons, I suggest you change the License for this project.

Note that you legally have the right to change the license, as you are the copyright holders and this right is protected in the CC-BY-NC-SA license (and by the law)

Here are my suggestions (hit choosealicense.com for more info):

• The MIT/Apache licenses are permissive, but require anyone who releases the code to attribute copyright holders.
• If you want to keep the Non-Commercial clause of the license, there are no such clause in widespread open-source licenses, because they believe anyone should be able to do anything with the software. However, some licenses, like the LGPLv3, GPLv3, AGPLv3, and Mozilla Public License 2 do force people to disclose the source code.
• • Moreover, the AGPL license often refrains people to using a project's content commercially (for example, Google forbids its employees to use it), because it considers that even providing a service over the Internet (instead of as a desktop/mobile application) is also distribution. They therefore have to disclose the source, and state the changes if they made some. So, lots of companies are really afraid of using AGPL, which could suit to your wills of NonCommercial.

We need the permissions from all the copyright holders, a.k.a. all the contributors, to change the license, though. So, please let me know what licenses you would agree with, and in what order :

- [MIT License](https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/)
- - [ ] yes (rank: ``)
- - [ ] no
- [Apache License 2.0](https://choosealicense.com/licenses/apache-2.0/)
- - [ ] yes (rank: ``)
- - [ ] no
- [Mozilla Public License 2.0](https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mpl-2.0/)
- - [ ] yes (rank: ``)
- - [ ] no
- [GNU LGPLv3](https://choosealicense.com/licenses/lgpl-3.0/)
- - [ ] yes (rank: ``)
- - [ ] no
- [GNU GPLv3](https://choosealicense.com/licenses/gpl-3.0/)
- - [ ] yes (rank: ``)
- - [ ] no
- [GNU AGPLv3](https://choosealicense.com/licenses/agpl-3.0/)
- - [ ] yes (rank: ``)
- - [ ] no

(see an example in the hidden comment below). The more a rank is near with 1, the more you want this license to be used.

Note that some of you have only contributed to Markdown (.md text files) documents, so the code could change license, even if the Markdown files would stay from the old license. Otherwise, the Markdown files could also just be deleted and remade (differently, of course), or they could choose not to keep your changes in the stated files.

Note: Even if the project is/was dead, keeping the CC-BY-NC-SA is a bad choice (from my opinion) because it really refrains anyone to take the continuation with such a legacy. Moreover, they would have the choice but to keep this license (other licenses force to keep them too, but they are better :p).

Feel free to tell me what you think about all this.

[PetitPotiron]

(Example, my opinion does not count as I am not a former contributor, a.k.a copyright holder)

• MIT License
• • yes (rank: 1)
• • no
• Apache License 2.0
• • yes (rank: 2)
• • no
• Mozilla Public License 2.0
• • yes (rank: 3)
• • no
• GNU LGPLv3
• • yes (rank: 4)
• • no
• GNU GPLv3
• • yes (rank: 5)
• • no
• GNU AGPLv3
• • yes (rank: 6)
• • no

[7coil]

No.

[PetitPotiron]

No.

@7coil
Why? Are there particular reasons?