Image: Relicense under dual MIT/Apache-2.0

[emberian]

Why?

The MIT license requires reproducing countless copies of the same copyright
header with different names in the copyright field, for every MIT library in
use. The Apache license does not have this drawback, and has protections from
patent trolls and an explicit contribution licensing clause. However, the
Apache license is incompatible with GPLv2. This is why Rust is dual-licensed as
MIT/Apache (the "primary" license being Apache, MIT only for GPLv2 compat), and
doing so would be wise for this project. This also makes this crate suitable
for inclusion in the Rust standard distribution and other project using dual
MIT/Apache.

How?

To do this, get explicit approval from each contributor of copyrightable work
(as not all contributions qualify for copyright) and then add the following to
your README:

## License

Licensed under either of
 * Apache License, Version 2.0 ([LICENSE-APACHE](LICENSE-APACHE) or http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)
 * MIT license ([LICENSE-MIT](LICENSE-MIT) or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)
at your option.

### Contribution

Unless you explicitly state otherwise, any contribution intentionally submitted
for inclusion in the work by you shall be dual licensed as above, without any
additional terms or conditions.

and in your license headers, use the following boilerplate (based on that used in Rust):

// Copyright (c) 2015 t developers
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0
// <LICENSE-APACHE or
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> or the MIT
// license <LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>,
// at your option. All files in the project carrying such
// notice may not be copied, modified, or distributed except
// according to those terms.

And don't forget to update the license metadata in your Cargo.toml!

Contributor checkoff

• [x] @nwin
• [x] @bvssvni
• [x] @ccgn
• [x] @tomaka
• [x] @ruud-v-a
• [x] @Potpourri
• [x] @hauleth
• [x] @andersk
• [x] @mbrubeck
• [x] @pix64
• [x] @brookst
• [x] @TyOverby
• [x] @froydnj
• [x] @huonw
• [x] @cybergeek94
• [x] @indiv0
• [x] @b52
• [x] @cmr
• [x] @jpernst
• [x] @Ryman
• [x] @maxsnew
• [x] @gchp
• [x] @frewsxcv
• [x] @tafia
• [x] @ollie
• [x] @pavlov-dmitry
• [x] @zsiciarz
• [x] @AngryLawyer
• [x] @toqueteos
• [x] @lifthrasiir
• [x] @leonkunert
• [x] @bombless
• [x] @twoodford
• [x] @theotherphil
• [x] @orangea
• [x] @andrewrk
• [x] @dummer
• [x] @bpicolo
• [x] @lfairy
• [x] @Doom032
• [x] @Esption
• [ ] @burtonageo
• [x] @xanium4332
• [x] @jdpage
• [x] @Gekkio
• [x] @lucidd
• [x] @m4rw3r
• [x] @mprobinson
• [x] @XMPPwocky
• [x] @paulrouget
• [x] @retep998
• [x] @PeterMozesMerl
• [x] @flying-sheep
• [x] @Blei
• [x] @rsaarelm
• [x] @SimonSapin
• [x] @sondrele
• [x] @stjahns
• [x] @lgvz
• [x] @Denommus
• [x] @bfops
• [x] @ahtn
• [x] @robo9k

(Edit by @HeroicKatora 2019/05/05): Complementary list at https://github.com/image-rs/image/issues/503#issuecomment-489455940

[xanium4332]

What is the process for a contributor to provide explicit approval?

[frewsxcv]

I consent to relicensing my edits as MIT/Apache-2.0

[emberian]

@xanium4332 just leave a comment here.

[pix64]

I consent

[jpernst]

I can't remember what I contributed exactly or if it qualifies, but just in case, I consent to relicense my contributions under MIT and Apache 2.0.

[andrewrk]

I consented by using collaborator permissions to check my own box.

[Gekkio]

Didn't even remember I made any changes to this project :)

I consent.

[abonander]

Checked my own box with collab perms.

[xanium4332]

I consent to relicensing my edits as MIT/Apache-2.0

[andersk]

I approve relicensing my contributions to dual MIT/Apache 2.0.

[ghost]

I consent

[mbrubeck]

I approve relicensing my contributions to dual MIT/Apache 2.0.

[hauleth]

Let it be.

[mprobinson]

I consent.

On 1/8/16, Łukasz Niemier [email protected] wrote:

Let it be.

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/PistonDevelopers/image/issues/503#issuecomment-170147965

[XMPPwocky]

I consent.

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:03 PM, mprobinson [email protected] wrote:

I consent.

On 1/8/16, Łukasz Niemier [email protected] wrote:

Let it be.

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

https://github.com/PistonDevelopers/image/issues/503#issuecomment-170147965

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/PistonDevelopers/image/issues/503#issuecomment-170151841
.

[Ryman]

I consent.

[ruuda]

I consent.

[gchp]

Fine with me!

[lambda-fairy]

I consent!

[twoodford]

I consent to relicensing my edits as MIT/Apache v.2

[huonw]

I consent.

[TyOverby]

I consent to relicensing my edits as MIT/Apache v.2

[bpicolo]

Relicense is fine with me.

Also, seems it's about time someone invents a license with a better relicense clause

[m4rw3r]

I consent to relicensing my edits as MIT/Apache v.2

[tafia]

I consent
On 9 Jan 2016 10:15, "Martin Wernståhl" [email protected] wrote:

I consent to relicensing my edits as MIT/Apache v.2

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/PistonDevelopers/image/issues/503#issuecomment-170181111
.

[lifthrasiir]

I'm fine with relicensing.

[bombless]

I approve relicensing my contributions to dual MIT/Apache 2.0.

[zsiciarz]

I consent to relicensing my contributions as MIT/Apache 2.0.

[toqueteos]

I consent.

[nwin]

I consent.

[theotherphil]

I consent

[froydnj]

I consent to relicensing my changes under an MIT/Apache-2.0 dual license.

[brookst]

I consent.

[b52]

I consent.

[emberian]

Pinging people due to github @-mention limit:

@retep998
@PeterMozesMerl
@flying-sheep
@Blei
@rsaarelm
@SimonSapin
@sondrele
@stjahns
@lgvz
@Denommus
@bfops
@ahtn
@robo9k

[lucidd]

I consent to relicensing my contributions as MIT/Apache 2.0.

[retep998]

I am okay with this.

[PeterMozesMerl]

Sure, thank you for asking.

[sondrele]

I consent!

[bvssvni]

I approve dual licensing under MIT/Apache.

[bfops]

Sounds fine, I agree.

[rsaarelm]

I consent to relicensing my edits as MIT/Apache-2.0

[flying-sheep]

i consent

[robo9k]

I consented by using collaborator permissions to check my own box.

[pavlov-dmitry]

I consent.

[ghost]

Fine with me.

[jdpage]

I approve relicensing my contributions to dual MIT/Apache 2.0.

[TyOverby]

I consent to relicensing my contributions as MIT/Apache 2.0.

[ollie]

Yes please. (I consent.)

[paulrouget]

I consent.

[leonkunert]

I consent

[Blei]

I consent to relicensing my edits as MIT/Apache-2.0

[Esption]

The relicensing is fine by me.

[Denommus]

I'm fine with it.

[AngryLawyer]

Yeah go for it

[stjahns]

I consent.

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 2:12 PM, cmr [email protected] wrote:

Pinging people due to github @-mention limit:

@retep998 https://github.com/retep998
@PeterMozesMerl https://github.com/PeterMozesMerl
@flying-sheep https://github.com/flying-sheep
@Blei https://github.com/Blei
@rsaarelm https://github.com/rsaarelm
@SimonSapin https://github.com/SimonSapin
@sondrele https://github.com/sondrele
@stjahns https://github.com/stjahns
@lgvz https://github.com/lgvz
@Denommus https://github.com/Denommus
@bfops https://github.com/bfops
@ahtn https://github.com/ahtn
@robo9k https://github.com/robo9k

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/PistonDevelopers/image/issues/503#issuecomment-170271154
.

[indiv0]

I consent.

[SimonSapin]

I’m OK with this if the maintainers are.

[jdpage]

Any word on moving forward with this? There are still several people who haven't responded yet. Should someone try to contact them out-of-band (email?) and get their consent?

[bvssvni]

The biggest contributor that has not given consent yet is @ccgn.

[flying-sheep]

(s)he starred something three weeks ago and didn’t do anything else on github within the last year

[ccgn]

Wow! Sorry for the late reply. I think this is a good idea.
I give my consent

[bvssvni]

Reminder:

@Potpourri @ahtn if you give consent, I think we're ready.

@maxsnew @dummer @Doom032 @burtonageo have made minor contributions, but would like to hear your input before making license changes.

[flying-sheep]

@ccgn sorry for stalking your public activity on your github profile, i just wanted to know if it’s realistic that you would respond.

[ccgn]

@flying-sheep its no problem i was just exclaiming that i missed this long thread for months

[artemkonenko]

Sorry for the late reply. Yes, I consent to relicensing my edits as MIT/Apache-2.0.

[ahtn]

I consent

[nwin]

So actually we lost track of this one and accepted new merges in the mean time. Would it be feasible to add some kind of addition like: New contributions are accepted under MIT/Apache?

[bvssvni]

@Potpourri @ahtn Just a small reminder!

[maxsnew]

I consent

[Potpourri]

I consent.

[flying-sheep]

now only @Doom032 and @burtonageo are missing!

[Doom032]

I forgot I even contributed to this. I'd even argue that my commit was
trivial so my consent is not necessary. But I won't keep you up.

I consent to relicensing the source code to dual licensed MIT/Apache-2.0

On 05-11-16 00:05, Philipp A. wrote:

now only @Doom032 and @burtonageo are missing!

[martinlindhe]

Now only consent from @burtonageo is missing

[philipc]

get explicit approval from each contributor of copyrightable work (as not all contributions qualify for copyright)

I'd consider @burtonageo's contribution to be mechanical enough that it doesn't need consent.

[fintelia]

Presumably we also need approval of everyone who contributed after this issue was created in 2016. (Notice for instance that my account isn't listed above...) Does anyone know how to get a list in an automated way?

Also, I consent.

[HeroicKatora]

The github api is a good starting point: some variation of https://api.github.com/repos/image-rs/image/contributors or another endpoint likely has the data.

Some way to diff that with the above list of already consented users (assuming one file comment_list and one api_list:
cat comment_list api_list | sort | uniq -u

[HeroicKatora]

Renewed list of contributors, not including those already mentioned in the first comment, since then.

Reminder: This is issue is opened to gather consent for relicensing this repo to MIT / Apache v2, the license used by most of the Rust ecosystem see the top comment for details.

To consent, reply with this text:

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

• [x] @abonander
• [ ] @AdnoC
• [x] @adrianN
• [x] @ahtn already in the previous list.
• [ ] @anthonynguyen
• [x] @artemkonenko already in the previous list.
• [x] @ArturKovacs
• [x] @aschampion
• [x] @atouchet
• [x] @birktj
• [x] @bluss
• [x] @brettfo
• [x] @calum
• [x] @CensoredUsername
• [x] @chills42
• [ ] @crazymykl
• [x] @cuviper
• [x] @cybergeek94 already in the previous list
• [x] @d-dorazio
• [x] @dgulotta
• [x] @Diggsey
• [ ] @donachys
• [x] @Dummer already in the previous list
• [x] @eddyb
• [x] @edwin0cheng
• [x] @Eijebong
• [ ] @ethanboxx
• [x] @fintelia
• [x] @francesca64
• [ ] @HarryLovesCode
• [x] @HeroicKatora
• [x] @i80and
• [x] @ijks
• [x] @Isan-Rivkin
• [x] @jaysonsantos
• [x] @jpernst already in the previous list
• [x] @kaj
• [x] @kaksmet
• [x] @Kerollmops
• [x] @khyperia
• [ ] @lazypassion
• [x] @leoschwarz
• [ ] @locriani
• [x] @lovebug356
• [x] @lukors
• [x] @lukpank
• [x] @mandeep
• [x] @Manishearth
• [x] @martinlindhe
• [x] @mathstuf
• [x] @mdsteele
• [ ] @mgsloan
• [ ] @mr4x
• [x] @Ms2ger
• [x] @neosilky
• [x] @nox
• [x] @oli-obk
• [x] @oyvindln
• [x] @panicbit
• [ ] @pducks32
• [x] @pedrocr
• [ ] @petr-tik
• [x] @philipc
• [x] @rap2hpoutre
• [x] @red75prime
• [ ] @RedRoosterMobile
• [x] @Robzz
• [ ] @ruuda
• [x] @ruud-v-a already in the previous list
• [x] @sameer
• [x] @samphippen
• [ ] @shssoichiro
• [x] @SirWaddles
• [x] @srdqty
• [x] @stevebob
• [x] @sunjay
• [x] @tatref
• [x] @tbu-
• [x] @teovoinea
• [ ] @TheEnigmaBlade
• [x] @TheNeikos
• [ ] @tjklemz
• [x] @vbarrielle
• [x] @vickenty
• [x] @vitvakatu
• [ ] @vvhh2002

Created with:

curl 'https://api.github.com/repos/image-rs/image/contributors?per_page=100&page=1' >> contributors.json
curl 'https://api.github.com/repos/image-rs/image/contributors?per_page=100&page=2' >> contributors.json
cat contributors.json | grep "login" | sed 's/ *"login": "\(.*\)",/\1/' | sort > contributors
cat contributors contributors_thread | sort | uniq -u | sed 's/.*/- [ ] @\0/'

[Eijebong]

Sure, I'm ok with this :)

[Diggsey]

I consent.

Might want to update the README and PR template so that you don't have to get permission from future contributions, or this list is going to just keep getting longer...

[birktj]

I consent.

[CensoredUsername]

I consent to relicensing my contributions under dual MIT/Apache-2.0

[Manishearth]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Yes, you should explicitly mention the above text in the issue itself, and maybe use a <details> tag to hide the checkist in the initial issue. See https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/3097 for an example of this being done clearly.

[brettfo]

I consent.

[panicbit]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[cuviper]

I consent to relicensing my contributions as MIT/Apache 2.0.

[dgulotta]

I consent.

[abonander]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0
license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

On Sun, May 5, 2019, 12:38 Daniel Gulotta [e-mail] wrote:

I consent.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/image-rs/image/issues/503#issuecomment-489456872, or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAYM5A7ZHF7R26BIFOM7RLDPT4ZUTANCNFSM4BYF7DGA
.

[Kerollmops]

I consent.

[leoschwarz]

I license past and future contributions to the image-rs/image project under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

I don't think my one commit I have made here is of sufficient individuality and originality to even be copyrightable.

[mandeep]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[Isan-Rivkin]

I consent 👍

[HeroicKatora]

@leoschwarz Validating that for each individual contributor would have been far more work. Your contribution is appreciated either way, in your specific case I would certainly judge that it was, totalling (+30, -42) on many examples. Sorry if the ping did was annoying.

[oyvindln]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[martinlindhe]

+1

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[eddyb]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[philipc]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[d-dorazio]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[edwin0cheng]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[kaksmet]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[adrianN]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[kaj]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[vbarrielle]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[khyperia]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[aschampion]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[ijks]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[ArturKovacs]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[mathstuf]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[chills42]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[lukors]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[atouchet]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[francesca64]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[PeterMozesMerl]

Cheers

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 7:26 PM Francesca Plebani [e-mail]
wrote:

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0
license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/image-rs/image/issues/503#issuecomment-489703190, or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABSN3PLJLBVA56J3IJFH5RTPUBS2VANCNFSM4BYF7DGA
.

[fintelia]

Pinging additional people due to github @-mention limit:

Reminder: This is issue is opened to gather consent for relicensing this repo to MIT / Apache v2, the license used by most of the Rust ecosystem see the top comment for details.

To consent, reply with this text:

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

@mdsteele
@mgsloan
@mr4x
@Ms2ger
@neosilky
@nox
@oli-obk
@pducks32
@pedrocr
@petr-tik
@rap2hpoutre
@red75prime
@RedRoosterMobile
@Robzz
@ruuda
@ruud-v-a
@sameer
@samphippen
@shssoichiro
@SirWaddles
@srdqty
@stevebob
@sunjay
@tatref
@tbu-
@teovoinea
@TheEnigmaBlade
@TheNeikos
@tjklemz
@vickenty
@vitvakatu
@vvhh2002

[sameer]

I consent.

[daniellockyer]

I consent.

[srdqty]

My commit was just a one-liner making an enum public, but I consent if it matters.

[HeroicKatora]

@fintelia That explains the extremely skewed distribution of answers towards the top of the original list :joy:

[vitvakatu]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[teovoinea]

I license past and future contributions to this repository under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[SirWaddles]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to choose either at their option.

[nox]

I approve relicensing my contributions to dual MIT/Apache 2.0.

[Robzz]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Funny thing is, I mostly just removed code to move it to image-tiff, so, there ain't much to license.

[lovebug356]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[tbu-]

I license my past contributions to this repository under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[jaysonsantos]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[Ms2ger]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[vickenty]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[oli-obk]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[pedrocr]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[red75prime]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[i80and]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[tatref]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[sunjay]

I consent

[penelopezone]

Happy to relicense here!

On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 08:50, Sunjay Varma [e-mail] wrote:

I consent

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/image-rs/image/issues/503#issuecomment-490472976, or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAXTFSUD2LXS4XKEP5IDVDPULECHANCNFSM4BYF7DGA
.

>

Sam Phippen

[TheNeikos]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[lukpank]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[rap2hpoutre]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[mdsteele]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[stevebob]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[HeroicKatora]

Pinging remaining users after a week of unactivity.

Reminder: This is issue is opened to gather consent for relicensing this repo to MIT / Apache v2, the license used by most of the Rust ecosystem see the top comment for details.

To consent, reply with this text:

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

Note: I've tried to find the git name authorship for each one to allow us to judge if some one-line contribution are below copyright threshold in case of further inactivity, hopefully we can avoid that. (git log --author="<name>" --all). Names where I couldn't find any (also not in https://github.com/image-rs/image/graphs/contributors) are indicated with ???. No matter if you find them, don't just publicly post their names or other personal information even though they are semi-public in the git commits.

@AdnoC
@anthonynguyen
@bluss
@ calum (contacted manually per mail due to obvious inactivity)
@crazymykl
@donachys (???)
@ethanboxx
@HarryLovesCode
@lazypassion
@locriani
@mgsloan
@mr4x
@pducks32 (???)
@petr-tik
@RedRoosterMobile
@ruuda
@shssoichiro
@TheEnigmaBlade
@tjklemz
@vvhh2002

[Isan-Rivkin]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option

[HeroicKatora]

@Isan-Rivkin You had already consented but this is clearer. Thanks :joy:

[calum]

I license past and future contributions under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[bluss]

I license past and future contributions [to this repository] under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.