Rfcs: [4/4] License under dual MIT/Apache-2.0

[est31]

This is a sign-off issue as per RFC 2044 (tracking issue) to license the rust-lang/rfcs repo under dual Apache2/MIT licensing terms.

You are receiving this notification because you have contributed to this repo.

For a discussion on why this move is desired, please see the RFC's text.

While smaller changes can't be copyrighted by law, its non-trivial to find out with certainity whether a given change falls under copyright or not, due to the nature of the matter. Therefore I'm asking you to agree to the new terms even if you consider your contributions to be not copyrightable.

To minimize noise in your inbox, let me use this opportunity to ask those among you who have unmerged RFCs in the queue to add a license header to your RFC drafts. In a few days/weeks I'll go through the list of open RFCs and ask for license headers to be added for the remaining RFCs that lack headers. The RFC's text contains the precise header (and has one already itself). Filing PRs to add headers to your already merged RFCs is not required, they will get headers in bulk.

Checkoff

To agree to the licensing terms, please comment with:

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

Thank you!

• [x] @sanxiyn
• [x] @scottmcm
• [x] @seanmonstar
• [x] @SergioBenitez
• [x] @sfackler
• [x] @sgrif
• [x] @shepmaster
• [x] @SimonSapin
• [x] @snorr
• [x] @solson
• [x] @Stebalien
• [x] @steveklabnik
• [x] @stjepang
• [x] @swashcap
• [x] @tari
• [x] @tbu-
• [x] @thepowersgang
• [x] @ticki
• [ ] @tomjakubowski
• [x] @tommit
• [x] @tomprince
• [x] @tshepang
• [x] @ubsan
• [x] @untitaker
• [x] @vadimcn
• [x] @WiSaGaN
• [x] @withoutboats
• [x] @wycats
• [x] @xen0n
• [x] @XMPPwocky
• [x] @zackw
• [x] @bluss, author of eecfd7828180814a20453ef91c792c25d9a77f24 and c10f8e580fdd2a946d7148ec7de41957ff64b384
• [x] @ivegotasthma
• [x] @kud1ing, author of 62bfca40a797e5af156fd2a4ff9657b70cb2047f
• [ ] Jakub Bukaj, author of c539b10a99c59bb96ba4657ff9263e2074aaa637
• [x] @zwarich, author of d017285ca7e06125353d116f1e9a54df963d8575
• [x] @killercup
• [x] @Nokel81

[withoutboats]

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

[solson]

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

[SergioBenitez]

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

[Stebalien]

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

[tomprince]

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

[seanmonstar]

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

[tbu-]

I think the following copy-paste licensing terms would be more appropriate:

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

This specifies which contributions your re-license (the ones to the Rust RFC repository), and that you're talking about the past contributions that need to be relicensed. Future contributions will be handled by the then-stated copyright of the whole repository

[tbu-]

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

[est31]

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

Using that sentence is okay as well! I'd say "to the Rust RFC repository" is implied in the one I've suggested...

[xen0n]

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

[xen0n]

(Side note: choose is misspelled in the original sentence but I think the acknowledgement should be verbatim in case the verification process is done by strcmp.)

[sfackler]

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

[shepmaster]

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

[swashcap]

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

[kud1ing]

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

[scottmcm]

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

[stjepang]

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

[SimonSapin]

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

[tari]

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

[tshepang]

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

[thepowersgang]

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

[WiSaGaN]

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

[ghost]

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

[zackw]

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

[sgrif]

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

[steveklabnik]

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

[killercup]

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

[untitaker]

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

[strega-nil]

I license past and future contributions under either the MIT or Apache 2.0 license; licensees may choose either at their option.

[sanxiyn]

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

[snocl]

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

[ticki]

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

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

[vadimcn]

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

[ghost]

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 under the dual MIT/Apache-2.0 license, allowing licensees to chose either at their option.

[XMPPwocky]

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

On Jul 29, 2017 7:12 AM, "bluss" [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/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/2079#issuecomment-318833590, or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABMVaoifeiQ3qxq71ZFVdFzhP8iJ9dorks5sSz3ggaJpZM4Oh7xZ
.

[erkinalp]

I prefer MIT only. Apache should be left for actual implementation.

[wycats]

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

[Nokel81]

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

[ticki]

cc @tomjakubowski

[est31]

Friendly ping @zwarich

[est31]

I've checked the mark for @zwarich, they have been employee of Mozilla: https://linkedin.com/in/cameronzwarich

[Centril]

Triage ping: cc @tomjakubowski

[Centril]

Triage ping: cc @tomjakubowski

[Dylan-DPC]

@tomjakubowski waiting for you to consent to this