collective licensing

[wsc1]

There are a lot of existing Go projects whose involvement and interoperability with zc would create synergy. ZC has a 3-clause BSD shared author license, which is in the form of Go. However, it seems most projects use Apache 2.

This issue is to invite discussion on the possibility of changing the license of zc to Apache or somehow offering both Apache and 3-BSD shared author licenses. If zc had a shared author Apache license, it seems it might be easier to arrive at a single collective license which more components could be distributed under.

[mewmew]

Would be interested if you listed the specific repositories that you have under consideration, so that we may invite those authors to the discussion directly, and also list what each project has for license.

[wsc1]

Yes can do that, I'd be interested if you did the same as well.

[mewmew]

I'm only using FLAC and WAV encoders/decoders, so will list those below:

• FLAC
  • github.com/mewkiz/flac: public domain
• WAV
  • github.com/azul3d/engine/audio/wav: BSD 3 clause
  • github.com/go-audio/wav: Apache 2.0
  • github.com/zikichombo/codec/wav: BSD 3 clause

[mewmew]

I don't think there is an issue to keep this code base in BSD and still use projects being in Apache and vice versa.

See: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a

Works under the following licenses may be included within Apache products:

• BSD (without advertising clause). Including variants:
  • BSD 2-clause
  • BSD 3-clause

[wsc1]

I'm no lawyer and so tend to proceed with caution

"you can include BSD 3-clause under apache license" goes in only one sense. Where did you see the other sense?

Also, such imports would place the licenses under mixed author, mixed license. Although we can research and verify that that is ok with what we want, and present something simple to consumers, it is still perhaps more complicated than necessary.

For the research, I didn't see in your apache link anything about difference in patents, for which IRI France, SAS could provide the equivalent of the Google Go Patent grant for zc or adopt APACHE, which has patent protection (maybe stronger protection than Google Go Patent grant to my understanding). In fact, it seems not having patent protection for IFS is a liability that would be nice to address.

Other APACHE licensed audio code:
webm parser
sigourney (although zc doesn't have any midi synth related tools or know-how at present)
most of what I've seen in go-audio
most of what I've seen related to android Audio (such as github.com/google/oboe)
go-mp3

Other licenses
github.com/faiface/beep: MIT
jfreymuth ogg/vorbis: MIT

All these licenses are similar in spirit to me. But compatability still scares me due mostly to patents but also to the fact that once we start considering a set of licenses, it indicates we may change that later and so may scare off some potential consumers who might think our idea of what is ok might stray outside theirs.

At the same time, IRI France SAS disposition w.r.t. to all this is to work by consensus of those involved. At present, IFS's name is on the collective license in more pronounced way, like Google in the Go license. Apache shared author license differs in this respect, placing all authors under the same conditions. Some may prefer that, and it would also be more reflective of the IFS disposition to work by consensus.

For info, earlier, @mattetti suggested to keep the list at MIT/Apache.

[wsc1]

Just asked @hajimehoshi about go-mp3 here

[wsc1]

I'm only using FLAC and WAV encoders/decoders, so will list those below:

• FLAC

  • github.com/mewkiz/flac: public domain

• WAV

  • github.com/azul3d/engine/audio/wav: BSD 3 clause
  • github.com/go-audio/wav: Apache 2.0
  • github.com/zikichombo/codec/wav: BSD 3 clause

It looks to me like both azul3d and go-audio wav support more wav functionality than zc/codec/wav.
moreover, they support different things. So hopefully zc/codec/wav can use or work from those implementations.

[wsc1]

Would be interested if you listed the specific repositories that you have under consideration, so that we may invite those authors to the discussion directly, and also list what each project has for license.

And of course, (I didn't see earlier) there is the GitHub.com/ljud organsition planned.

[mewmew]

And of course, (I didn't see earlier) there is the GitHub.com/ljud organsition planned.

Like the flac lib, anything my brother and I develop we release into the public domain.

[hajimehoshi]

Note that public domain might be problematic in some countries since the license might not be valid as a legal contract: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5736/sqlite-is-illegal-in-germany-really

[wsc1]

And of course, (I didn't see earlier) there is the GitHub.com/ljud organsition planned.

Like the flac lib, anything my brother and I develop we release into the public domain.

Is this a disposition against participating in a collective license that is not public domain, or just a preference for how you release your work independently of collectively deciding an open source license?

[mewmew]

Is this a disposition against participating in a collective license that is not public domain, or just a preference for how you release your work independently of collectively deciding an open source license?

Just a preference. BSD, MIT, Apache works well also.

[wsc1]

Note that public domain might be problematic in some countries since the license might not be valid as a legal contract: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5736/sqlite-is-illegal-in-germany-really

I read somewhere that Free software foundation/GPL recommended a standard wikipedia license for public domain grants for legal reasons I don't understand.