Hi all,

as you may know, aerc is currently distributed under the MIT license.
This prevents from shipping aerc with notmuch support always enabled
(notmuch being GPL).

After some multiple reported issues when building from source and
countless discussions on IRC, it was suggested to change the licensing
of aerc to GPL. Most downstream distributions already build aerc with
notmuch support enabled anyways. This means that a lot of people are
using aerc with GPL contamination.

Changing the distribution license of project requires formal approval of
all of its individual contributors. Out of laziness, the only listed
copyright holders in the LICENSE file[1] are Drew and myself. However,
it is obvious that we didn't write 100% of aerc only the two of us.

[1]: https://git.sr.ht/~rjarry/aerc/tree/master/item/LICENSE

To do things right, I have Bcc'd this message to all authors listed in
the git history:

 git shortlog -se | sed -re 's/^[[:space:]]+[0-9]+[[:space:]]+//'

Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
remain with their original license (MIT).

[2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html

Thanks in advance.

-- 
Robin

Sure, GPL sounds great for aerc. I accept.

Accept. Thanks for the effort!

Paul

> On 20. Feb 2023, at 18:59, Robin Jarry <robin@jarry.cc> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> as you may know, aerc is currently distributed under the MIT license.
> This prevents from shipping aerc with notmuch support always enabled
> (notmuch being GPL).
> 
> After some multiple reported issues when building from source and
> countless discussions on IRC, it was suggested to change the licensing
> of aerc to GPL. Most downstream distributions already build aerc with
> notmuch support enabled anyways. This means that a lot of people are
> using aerc with GPL contamination.
> 
> Changing the distribution license of project requires formal approval of
> all of its individual contributors. Out of laziness, the only listed
> copyright holders in the LICENSE file[1] are Drew and myself. However,
> it is obvious that we didn't write 100% of aerc only the two of us.
> 
> [1]: https://git.sr.ht/~rjarry/aerc/tree/master/item/LICENSE
> 
> To do things right, I have Bcc'd this message to all authors listed in
> the git history:
> 
> git shortlog -se | sed -re 's/^[[:space:]]+[0-9]+[[:space:]]+//'
> 
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
> remain with their original license (MIT).
> 
> [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> -- 
> Robin

Hi,

On Mon Feb 20, 2023 at 6:59 PM CET, Robin Jarry wrote:
> [...]
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
> remain with their original license (MIT).

I accept. Thanks to all for your great work!

Kind regards,

Jens

-- 
Wegtam GmbH, CTO 2023-02-20 19:13
Homepage : https://www.wegtam.com

BOFH excuse #395:

Redundant ACLs

I'm fine with the change to GPL.

Approved-by: Jose Lombera <jose@lombera.dev>

On 2023-02-20 18:59 UTC, Robin Jarry wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> as you may know, aerc is currently distributed under the MIT license.
> This prevents from shipping aerc with notmuch support always enabled
> (notmuch being GPL).

Does this mean notmuch will be enabled by default?  Or will we still
have to pass `GOFLAGS=-tags=notmuch` to `make` and `make install` every
time.

>
> After some multiple reported issues when building from source and
> countless discussions on IRC, it was suggested to change the licensing
> of aerc to GPL. Most downstream distributions already build aerc with
> notmuch support enabled anyways. This means that a lot of people are
> using aerc with GPL contamination.
>
> Changing the distribution license of project requires formal approval of
> all of its individual contributors. Out of laziness, the only listed
> copyright holders in the LICENSE file[1] are Drew and myself. However,
> it is obvious that we didn't write 100% of aerc only the two of us.
>
> [1]: https://git.sr.ht/~rjarry/aerc/tree/master/item/LICENSE
>
> To do things right, I have Bcc'd this message to all authors listed in
> the git history:
>
>  git shortlog -se | sed -re 's/^[[:space:]]+[0-9]+[[:space:]]+//'
>
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
> remain with their original license (MIT).
>
> [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> -- 
> Robin




--

Jose Lombera, Feb 20, 2023 at 19:17:
> I'm fine with the change to GPL.
>
> Approved-by: Jose Lombera <jose@lombera.dev>
>
> On 2023-02-20 18:59 UTC, Robin Jarry wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > as you may know, aerc is currently distributed under the MIT license.
> > This prevents from shipping aerc with notmuch support always enabled
> > (notmuch being GPL).
>
> Does this mean notmuch will be enabled by default?  Or will we still
> have to pass `GOFLAGS=-tags=notmuch` to `make` and `make install` every
> time.

No, this will be enabled by default, provided you have notmuch headers
installed.

I accept the change of license of aerc from MIT to GPL.

I accept!

Best,
Bence

2023. febr. 20. 19:13:08 Robin Jarry <robin@jarry.cc>:

> Hi all,
>
> as you may know, aerc is currently distributed under the MIT license.
> This prevents from shipping aerc with notmuch support always enabled
> (notmuch being GPL).
>
> After some multiple reported issues when building from source and
> countless discussions on IRC, it was suggested to change the licensing
> of aerc to GPL. Most downstream distributions already build aerc with
> notmuch support enabled anyways. This means that a lot of people are
> using aerc with GPL contamination.
>
> Changing the distribution license of project requires formal approval 
> of
> all of its individual contributors. Out of laziness, the only listed
> copyright holders in the LICENSE file[1] are Drew and myself. However,
> it is obvious that we didn't write 100% of aerc only the two of us.
>
> [1]: https://git.sr.ht/~rjarry/aerc/tree/master/item/LICENSE
>
> To do things right, I have Bcc'd this message to all authors listed in
> the git history:
>
> git shortlog -se | sed -re 's/^[[:space:]]+[0-9]+[[:space:]]+//'
>
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
> remain with their original license (MIT).
>
> [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> --
> Robin

+1

El 20/02/2023, a las 18:59, Robin Jarry dejó escrito:
> Hi all,
>
> as you may know, aerc is currently distributed under the MIT license.
> This prevents from shipping aerc with notmuch support always enabled
> (notmuch being GPL).
>
> After some multiple reported issues when building from source and
> countless discussions on IRC, it was suggested to change the licensing
> of aerc to GPL. Most downstream distributions already build aerc with
> notmuch support enabled anyways. This means that a lot of people are
> using aerc with GPL contamination.
>
> Changing the distribution license of project requires formal approval of
> all of its individual contributors. Out of laziness, the only listed
> copyright holders in the LICENSE file[1] are Drew and myself. However,
> it is obvious that we didn't write 100% of aerc only the two of us.
>
> [1]: https://git.sr.ht/~rjarry/aerc/tree/master/item/LICENSE
>
> To do things right, I have Bcc'd this message to all authors listed in
> the git history:
>
>  git shortlog -se | sed -re 's/^[[:space:]]+[0-9]+[[:space:]]+//'
>
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
> remain with their original license (MIT).
>
> [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
>
> Thanks in advance.



--

I accept.

-Stas Rudakou

On Mon Feb 20, 2023 at 6:59 PM CET, Robin Jarry wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> as you may know, aerc is currently distributed under the MIT license.
> This prevents from shipping aerc with notmuch support always enabled
> (notmuch being GPL).
>
> After some multiple reported issues when building from source and
> countless discussions on IRC, it was suggested to change the licensing
> of aerc to GPL. Most downstream distributions already build aerc with
> notmuch support enabled anyways. This means that a lot of people are
> using aerc with GPL contamination.
>
> Changing the distribution license of project requires formal approval of
> all of its individual contributors. Out of laziness, the only listed
> copyright holders in the LICENSE file[1] are Drew and myself. However,
> it is obvious that we didn't write 100% of aerc only the two of us.
>
> [1]: https://git.sr.ht/~rjarry/aerc/tree/master/item/LICENSE
>
> To do things right, I have Bcc'd this message to all authors listed in
> the git history:
>
>  git shortlog -se | sed -re 's/^[[:space:]]+[0-9]+[[:space:]]+//'
>
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
> remain with their original license (MIT).
>
> [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> -- 
> Robin

On 2023-02-20 19:19 UTC, Robin Jarry wrote:
> Jose Lombera, Feb 20, 2023 at 19:17:
> > I'm fine with the change to GPL.
> >
> > Approved-by: Jose Lombera <jose@lombera.dev>
> >
> > On 2023-02-20 18:59 UTC, Robin Jarry wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > as you may know, aerc is currently distributed under the MIT license.
> > > This prevents from shipping aerc with notmuch support always enabled
> > > (notmuch being GPL).
> >
> > Does this mean notmuch will be enabled by default?  Or will we still
> > have to pass `GOFLAGS=-tags=notmuch` to `make` and `make install` every
> > time.
>
> No, this will be enabled by default, provided you have notmuch headers
> installed.

Great!  Thanks.

I accept!

I accept the change to GPL

— 
Tim Culverhouse

I accept.

I agree to having my changes relicensed to the GPL.

Strictly speaking this is not necessary in this specific situation but
hey.

Drew DeVault, Feb 20, 2023 at 20:40:
> Strictly speaking this is not necessary in this specific situation but
> hey.

Hi Drew,

I am no expert in legal details of FOSS licensing so my question may be
dumb.

Why is not necessary?

MIT is compatible with the GPL, so MIT'd works can be incorporated into
GPL'd works. The MIT parts remain MIT, the GPL parts remain GPL, and the
*combined work* becomes GPL. This is why the Linux kernel contains a lot
of MIT licensed code, for instance.

So in practice you can just include both licenses.

Hi Robin,

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023, at 10:59 AM, Robin Jarry wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> as you may know, aerc is currently distributed under the MIT license.
> This prevents from shipping aerc with notmuch support always enabled
> (notmuch being GPL).
>
> After some multiple reported issues when building from source and
> countless discussions on IRC, it was suggested to change the licensing
> of aerc to GPL. Most downstream distributions already build aerc with
> notmuch support enabled anyways. This means that a lot of people are
> using aerc with GPL contamination.
>
> Changing the distribution license of project requires formal approval of
> all of its individual contributors. Out of laziness, the only listed
> copyright holders in the LICENSE file[1] are Drew and myself. However,
> it is obvious that we didn't write 100% of aerc only the two of us.
>
> [1]: https://git.sr.ht/~rjarry/aerc/tree/master/item/LICENSE
>
> To do things right, I have Bcc'd this message to all authors listed in
> the git history:
>
>  git shortlog -se | sed -re 's/^[[:space:]]+[0-9]+[[:space:]]+//'
>
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
> remain with their original license (MIT).
>
> [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> -- 
> Robin

Relicensing to GPL3 is fine with me.

Thanks,
Daniel

Hi there,

I'm really not a user of Aerc anymore, and my contribution is minor.
So, feel free to change to GPL if you will.

Please note, the email address I used when contributing to Aerc was
ariel AT costas DOT dev. This is no longer my address, and it's
redirected to my Gmail account (arielcostas AT gmail DOT com). I have
added a DNS TXT record as proof of ownership. Doing a DNS lookup for
`TXT costas.dev` should return (among other things) "My email address
is arielcostas at gmail dot com" as proof of ownership.

-- Ariel

I accept.
-- 
Moritz Poldrack
https://moritz.sh

Hi Robin,
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
> remain with their original license (MIT).
>
> [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html

I am fine with relicensing my contributions under the GPL 3.0.


Regards,

Andreas

Drew DeVault, Feb 20, 2023 at 20:50:
> MIT is compatible with the GPL, so MIT'd works can be incorporated into
> GPL'd works. The MIT parts remain MIT, the GPL parts remain GPL, and the
> *combined work* becomes GPL. This is why the Linux kernel contains a lot
> of MIT licensed code, for instance.
>
> So in practice you can just include both licenses.

I was not aware of this. In the event that some contributors refuse or
do not reply, we have that double license option solution then.

Thanks for the clarification.

Hello Robin,

thank you for your email. My preference is for aerc to
CONTINUE BEING LICENSED UNDER A PERMISSIVE LICENSE.

(BEGIN RANT - feel free to skip this)

I am not convinced something as significant as a license should be
chosen based on what most downstream maintainers are doing. Most FOSS is
linked against glibc. Sure, that's under LGPL, but if you were to
compile statically against it (a la Go), it would taint it too, right?
Isn't that more or less the same logic?

I really do not want to be mean and I am really grateful for the work
you and all the other maintainers are doing, but frankly, I cannot
imagine a worse justification for such a significant change.

I am not a big fan of the GPL, but I understand that it has it's place.
In my opinion however, it would do more good to let commercial players
copy from aerc, as that may make big email clients suck just a bit less.
Considering the amount of poor souls forced to use MS Outlook for
instance (me included), I'd be personally happy if MS relieved their
torture somewhat by taking some inspiration from actually good email
clients.

Since I already went off the rocker, let me finish with a quote just for
good measure:

'I recommend the linux people to call it “GNU / Linux” instead of
“GNU/Linux”. never hurts to distance yourself from GNU.'
— mjl on #plan9-social, from cat-v.org

(END RANT - sorry, I had a beer)

Considering the command you mentioned returns over 160 names, I can't
imagine being the only one with a preference for a permissive license.
However, in the case I am, please contact me again. I would probably
yield to the majority (especially considering the limited scope of my
contribution).

Thank you again for your work, have a lovely week. :)

Best regards,
Karel D. Kopecký

I accept the change of license.

Regards,
Rami

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 12:59 PM Robin Jarry <robin@jarry.cc> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> as you may know, aerc is currently distributed under the MIT license.
> This prevents from shipping aerc with notmuch support always enabled
> (notmuch being GPL).
>
> After some multiple reported issues when building from source and
> countless discussions on IRC, it was suggested to change the licensing
> of aerc to GPL. Most downstream distributions already build aerc with
> notmuch support enabled anyways. This means that a lot of people are
> using aerc with GPL contamination.
>
> Changing the distribution license of project requires formal approval of
> all of its individual contributors. Out of laziness, the only listed
> copyright holders in the LICENSE file[1] are Drew and myself. However,
> it is obvious that we didn't write 100% of aerc only the two of us.
>
> [1]: https://git.sr.ht/~rjarry/aerc/tree/master/item/LICENSE
>
> To do things right, I have Bcc'd this message to all authors listed in
> the git history:
>
>  git shortlog -se | sed -re 's/^[[:space:]]+[0-9]+[[:space:]]+//'
>
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
> remain with their original license (MIT).
>
> [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> --
> Robin

Hi Robin, all,

Robin Jarry writes:

> Hi all,
>
[...]
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
> remain with their original license (MIT).
>
> [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
>
> Thanks in advance.

I agree to relicense my contributions to aerc under the GNU GPLv3+.

-- 
https://kelar.org/~bandali

As far as I understand this isn't needed, and even then you wouldn't
need to ask for permission, but:

I accept my changes being relicensed under the GPL 3.0.

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023, at 10:59, Robin Jarry wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> as you may know, aerc is currently distributed under the MIT license.
> This prevents from shipping aerc with notmuch support always enabled
> (notmuch being GPL).
>
> After some multiple reported issues when building from source and
> countless discussions on IRC, it was suggested to change the licensing
> of aerc to GPL. Most downstream distributions already build aerc with
> notmuch support enabled anyways. This means that a lot of people are
> using aerc with GPL contamination.
>
> Changing the distribution license of project requires formal approval of
> all of its individual contributors. Out of laziness, the only listed
> copyright holders in the LICENSE file[1] are Drew and myself. However,
> it is obvious that we didn't write 100% of aerc only the two of us.
>
> [1]: https://git.sr.ht/~rjarry/aerc/tree/master/item/LICENSE
>
> To do things right, I have Bcc'd this message to all authors listed in
> the git history:
>
>  git shortlog -se | sed -re 's/^[[:space:]]+[0-9]+[[:space:]]+//'
>
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
> remain with their original license (MIT).
>
> [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> -- 
> Robin

Sure, fine by me

I accept the change of license to GPL.

I accept.

Thanks,
Folker


On Mon Feb 20, 2023 at 6:59 PM CET, Robin Jarry wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> as you may know, aerc is currently distributed under the MIT license.
> This prevents from shipping aerc with notmuch support always enabled
> (notmuch being GPL).
>
> After some multiple reported issues when building from source and
> countless discussions on IRC, it was suggested to change the licensing
> of aerc to GPL. Most downstream distributions already build aerc with
> notmuch support enabled anyways. This means that a lot of people are
> using aerc with GPL contamination.
>
> Changing the distribution license of project requires formal approval of
> all of its individual contributors. Out of laziness, the only listed
> copyright holders in the LICENSE file[1] are Drew and myself. However,
> it is obvious that we didn't write 100% of aerc only the two of us.
>
> [1]: https://git.sr.ht/~rjarry/aerc/tree/master/item/LICENSE
>
> To do things right, I have Bcc'd this message to all authors listed in
> the git history:
>
>  git shortlog -se | sed -re 's/^[[:space:]]+[0-9]+[[:space:]]+//'
>
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
> remain with their original license (MIT).
>
> [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
>
> Thanks in advance.



--

Hi,

Robin Jarry wrote 20.2.2023 19.59:
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc

I accept the change of license from MIT to GPL for the aerc project.

Yours,
  Tero Koskinen

Yes, I accept!

On Mon Feb 20, 2023 at 12:59 PM EST, Robin Jarry wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> as you may know, aerc is currently distributed under the MIT license.
> This prevents from shipping aerc with notmuch support always enabled
> (notmuch being GPL).
>
> After some multiple reported issues when building from source and
> countless discussions on IRC, it was suggested to change the licensing
> of aerc to GPL. Most downstream distributions already build aerc with
> notmuch support enabled anyways. This means that a lot of people are
> using aerc with GPL contamination.
>
> Changing the distribution license of project requires formal approval of
> all of its individual contributors. Out of laziness, the only listed
> copyright holders in the LICENSE file[1] are Drew and myself. However,
> it is obvious that we didn't write 100% of aerc only the two of us.
>
> [1]: https://git.sr.ht/~rjarry/aerc/tree/master/item/LICENSE
>
> To do things right, I have Bcc'd this message to all authors listed in
> the git history:
>
>  git shortlog -se | sed -re 's/^[[:space:]]+[0-9]+[[:space:]]+//'
>
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
> remain with their original license (MIT).
>
> [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> -- 
> Robin

On 2023-02-20 at 18:59+01:00, Robin Jarry wrote:
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
> remain with their original license (MIT).

While I'm happy that aerc is going to be released under
a copyleft license in the future, note that it is possible
to do so without any relicensing since MIT is compatible with GPL.
See also https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html

I agree with this change.

I’m happy with either GPL or AGPL.

—
Victor Freire

On 2/20/23 14:59, Robin Jarry wrote:
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.

I do accept the change from MIT to GPL for my changes.

-w

BR.

>Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
>refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.

I accept.

On Tue Feb 21, 2023 at 1:59 AM CST, Robin Jarry wrote:
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.

I accept the change to GPL.

* Robin Jarry <robin@jarry.cc> [2023-02-20 18:59]:
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.

I accept the change to GPL.

-- 
Martin Michlmayr
https://www.cyrius.com/

Hi Robin,

I *accept* the change of license from MIT to GPL for my changes in the 
aerc project.

Have a nice day!

Kind regards,
Wiktor

On 20.02.2023 18:59, Robin Jarry wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> as you may know, aerc is currently distributed under the MIT license.
> This prevents from shipping aerc with notmuch support always enabled
> (notmuch being GPL).
> 
> After some multiple reported issues when building from source and
> countless discussions on IRC, it was suggested to change the licensing
> of aerc to GPL. Most downstream distributions already build aerc with
> notmuch support enabled anyways. This means that a lot of people are
> using aerc with GPL contamination.
> 
> Changing the distribution license of project requires formal approval of
> all of its individual contributors. Out of laziness, the only listed
> copyright holders in the LICENSE file[1] are Drew and myself. However,
> it is obvious that we didn't write 100% of aerc only the two of us.
> 
> [1]: https://git.sr.ht/~rjarry/aerc/tree/master/item/LICENSE
> 
> To do things right, I have Bcc'd this message to all authors listed in
> the git history:
> 
>   git shortlog -se | sed -re 's/^[[:space:]]+[0-9]+[[:space:]]+//'
> 
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
> remain with their original license (MIT).
> 
> [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 

On Mon Feb 20, 2023 at 6:59 PM CET, Robin Jarry wrote:
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
> remain with their original license (MIT).

Hi Robin, I don't know if I was Bcc'd or if I received this because I'm
subscribed to aerc-devel, as I only sent a really small patch.

In any case, you're free to relicense my small contribution under the
GPL2, or under the terms of any license of the GPL family if you so
wish.

I look forward to notmuch integration out of the box! Thank you very
much for your awesome work :)

Hi,

On 2023-02-20 18:59 +0100, Robin Jarry wrote:
> 
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
> remain with their original license (MIT).

I accept the change to GPL.

--
Frode

Fine by me (note that my contributions were under a different name, and
one was from an @gmail.com email address but with the same name as the
contributions from ecs@d2evs.net)

Sounds good, I accept the license change.

On Mon Feb 20, 2023 at 11:59 AM CST, Robin Jarry wrote:
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
> remain with their original license (MIT).
>
> [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html

I accept.

Connor

Sounds great! I accept changing the license from MIT to GPL.

I accept the license change.

Thank you!
Shaw

On Mon Feb 20, 2023, Robin Jarry wrote:
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
> remain with their original license (MIT).

i accept the change of licensing from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.

 I accept the license change to GPL.

Thanks,

    Jeff

On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 at 11:59, Robin Jarry <robin@jarry.cc> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> as you may know, aerc is currently distributed under the MIT license.
> This prevents from shipping aerc with notmuch support always enabled
> (notmuch being GPL).
>
> After some multiple reported issues when building from source and
> countless discussions on IRC, it was suggested to change the licensing
> of aerc to GPL. Most downstream distributions already build aerc with
> notmuch support enabled anyways. This means that a lot of people are
> using aerc with GPL contamination.
>
> Changing the distribution license of project requires formal approval of
> all of its individual contributors. Out of laziness, the only listed
> copyright holders in the LICENSE file[1] are Drew and myself. However,
> it is obvious that we didn't write 100% of aerc only the two of us.
>
> [1]: https://git.sr.ht/~rjarry/aerc/tree/master/item/LICENSE
>
> To do things right, I have Bcc'd this message to all authors listed in
> the git history:
>
>  git shortlog -se | sed -re 's/^[[:space:]]+[0-9]+[[:space:]]+//'
>
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
> remain with their original license (MIT).
>
> [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
>

I accept the change from MIT to GPL 3.0.

Elias

Hi,

I accept the licensing change to GPL for my aerc contributions.

I accept the change from MIT to GPLv3.

Hi Robin,

That seems reasonable, I accept.

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 18:59:01 +0100, Robin Jarry wrote:
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
> remain with their original license (MIT).

Robin,

I accept. One commit I made was very minor though :)

Ivan

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 06:59:01PM +0100, Robin Jarry wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>as you may know, aerc is currently distributed under the MIT license.
>This prevents from shipping aerc with notmuch support always enabled
>(notmuch being GPL).
>
>After some multiple reported issues when building from source and
>countless discussions on IRC, it was suggested to change the licensing
>of aerc to GPL. Most downstream distributions already build aerc with
>notmuch support enabled anyways. This means that a lot of people are
>using aerc with GPL contamination.
>
>Changing the distribution license of project requires formal approval of
>all of its individual contributors. Out of laziness, the only listed
>copyright holders in the LICENSE file[1] are Drew and myself. However,
>it is obvious that we didn't write 100% of aerc only the two of us.
>
>[1]: https://git.sr.ht/~rjarry/aerc/tree/master/item/LICENSE
>
>To do things right, I have Bcc'd this message to all authors listed in
>the git history:
>
> git shortlog -se | sed -re 's/^[[:space:]]+[0-9]+[[:space:]]+//'
>
>Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
>refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
>This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
>remain with their original license (MIT).
>
>[2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>-- 
>Robin

I accept the change of license of aerc to GPLv3.

> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.

I accept

As I've just submitted my first patches and the code is still MIT
licensed, for completeness sake, I accept the license change of aerc
from MIT to GPL.

-- 
witcher

Accept!
 
Heiko
 
"Robin Jarry" robin@jarry.cc – 20 February 2023 12:59
> Hi all,
> 
> as you may know, aerc is currently distributed under the MIT license.
> This prevents from shipping aerc with notmuch support always enabled
> (notmuch being GPL).
> 
> After some multiple reported issues when building from source and
> countless discussions on IRC, it was suggested to change the licensing
> of aerc to GPL. Most downstream distributions already build aerc with
> notmuch support enabled anyways. This means that a lot of people are
> using aerc with GPL contamination.
> 
> Changing the distribution license of project requires formal approval of
> all of its individual contributors. Out of laziness, the only listed
> copyright holders in the LICENSE file[1] are Drew and myself. However,
> it is obvious that we didn't write 100% of aerc only the two of us.
> 
> [1]: https://git.sr.ht/~rjarry/aerc/tree/master/item/LICENSE
> 
> To do things right, I have Bcc'd this message to all authors listed in
> the git history:
> 
> git shortlog -se | sed -re 's/^[[:space:]]+[0-9]+[[:space:]]+//'
> 
> Could you please respond to this message stating whether you accept or
> refuse the change of license from MIT to GPL[2] for the aerc project.
> This will only affect future versions of aerc. Existing releases will
> remain with their original license (MIT).
> 
> [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
>

I'm not quite sure what I contributed, but I'm fine with relicensing 
aerc to GPL :)

Hi,

I don't remember contributing to aerc, but if I did, I'm totally okay
with relicensing my contributions.

And, I got the email, so I assume I"m in the history for some reason? :P

...Okay, I just checked - my only contribution was changing the IRC link
from freenode to libera.chat. There's no way that's even a copyrightable
change, so my approval is unnecessary anyways.

Still, sending this in the interest of making your life easier - you can
remove my name from the list of people whose approval is needed!

- Noam Preil

I accept the change of license from MIT to GPL for the aerc project.

~martin