The move has been approved by the CNCF governing board, I will move on with making Windows Exporter an official exporter.
On 06 Mar 12:05, Julien Pivotto wrote: > I wanted to give you an update on my previous email regarding the > licensing requirements for the Windows Exporter project. I have opened a > license exception request with the CNCF, which can be found at the > following link: > > https://github.com/cncf/foundation/issues/514 > > I will keep you all updated on any developments with this request. > > On 22 Dec 09:33, Stuart Clark wrote: > > On 2022-12-22 09:09, Ben Kochie wrote: > > > It was my understanding that license changes, can be done by the > > > copyright holder, without consent of all contributors. Because they do > > > not hold any copyright to the code. IIRC this is how Grafana was able > > > to relicense from Apache to AGPL. They did not need to get consent > > > from all contributors. > > > > > > Of course, old versions are subject to the old license, but moving > > > from prometheus-community to prometheus would effectively be a fork. > > > > > > In this case we could do it with permission from the original author > > > as stated in the LICENSE file. > > > > > > > You are correct in saying that it is the copyright owner(s) who have to > > agree to any license changes. > > > > However by default if you contribute something to a project you are now one > > of the copyright owners (only to your contributed code, not the whole > > thing). The original owner is nothing special (other than possibly being the > > largest owner, because there might be more of their code than anyone else). > > > > The only way around this (which I assume Grafana did, and other projects > > require) is when contributing you sign a copyright transfer agreement - that > > way legally the person/organisation the contributors transferred ownership > > to is the only owner, and they have the right to do anything they wanted > > (including using the code commercially or making everything closed source). > > > > So if this happened, and there is a record of signed copyright transfers the > > license could be changed just by the agreement of the one owner. Presumably > > however that isn't the case, and therefore it isn't possible. > > > > Another option which has been used in other projects (such as the Linux > > kernel for code that was found to not be correctly licensed [contributed by > > someone who didn't have the rights to do so]) is to remove that code & > > rewrite it (although you have to be careful that is is done 'cleanly' to > > stop claims that you just copied that bad code). At that point the > > contributor's code is no more, so no permission is then needed. If 95% of > > existing contributors agreed to relicense and/or assign copyright but there > > was 5% who didn't agree or couldn't be contacted that would potentially be > > an option - of course it could be very difficult/impossible if the remaining > > code was something really core. > > > > -- > > Stuart Clark > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Prometheus Developers" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to [email protected]. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/prometheus-developers/ecc14b37981ae722f6b7ca74203c67b9%40Jahingo.com. > > -- > Julien Pivotto > @roidelapluie -- Julien Pivotto @roidelapluie -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prometheus Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/prometheus-developers/ZJ06UTRQbXt68fvx%40nixos.
