You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The only mention of the owner is in LICENSE is @ccll
I would propose the ownership of the project is moved to Terra-Farm, and that we pick one licence - MIT. Perhaps it is possible to mix licence types, but I would like to hear the opinions of the original licence holder @ccll and @ringods since you hold the second highest number of commits.
This discussion is of course open to everybody, and if you have any experience with changing licences your voice would be appreciated.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@VoyTechnology I'm no the most knowledgeable on OSS licensing. I can say for now that I am ok with changing the license & owner for anything that I contributed to this provider.
So we currently have a bit of a mess in the licence for this project, where multiple licences are used.
LICENSE
- MIT, withccll
as ownermain.go
- MPLvirtualbox/provider.go
- MPLvirtualbox/resource_vm_test.go
- MPLvirtualbox/resource_natnetwork.go
- MPLThe other files do not contain a licence header.
The only mention of the owner is in
LICENSE
is @ccllI would propose the ownership of the project is moved to
Terra-Farm
, and that we pick one licence - MIT. Perhaps it is possible to mix licence types, but I would like to hear the opinions of the original licence holder @ccll and @ringods since you hold the second highest number of commits.This discussion is of course open to everybody, and if you have any experience with changing licences your voice would be appreciated.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: