Skip to content

Add GNU General Public License v3 to LICENSE.md#128

Open
szschaler wants to merge 2 commits intomasterfrom
feature/add-license
Open

Add GNU General Public License v3 to LICENSE.md#128
szschaler wants to merge 2 commits intomasterfrom
feature/add-license

Conversation

@szschaler
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings March 24, 2026 08:35
@szschaler szschaler requested a review from alxbrd March 24, 2026 08:35
@szschaler
Copy link
Member Author

@alxbrd I noticed there isn't a license on this repo. As we're currently building on it in a different project, I thought it would be good to add one. I'm assuming you will be happy with GPL, but wanted to give you a chance to object. I'll leave this PR open for a week (until March 31st). If I haven't heard from you before then, I will go ahead and merge it in.

Copy link

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Pull request overview

Adds the GNU General Public License v3 text as the repository’s LICENSE.md, establishing GPLv3 as the intended licensing basis for the project.

Changes:

  • Added a new LICENSE.md containing the full GNU GPL v3 (29 June 2007) license text.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

@alxbrd
Copy link
Member

alxbrd commented Mar 24, 2026

@szschaler Thanks for the PR. I would avoid GPL and would suggest MIT or Apache instead.

@szschaler
Copy link
Member Author

Thanks. Why?

@alxbrd
Copy link
Member

alxbrd commented Mar 25, 2026

MIT and Apache are more permissive with fewer obligations on redistribution vs GPL.

@nk-coding
Copy link

(disclaimer: I'm the person working on this different project)
maybe EPL-2.0 would be a good common ground as a weak copyleft license
could still easily redistribute it without too much obligation, but if you modify the code itself you still need to provide it under the same license
Also this license seems to be really common among the Eclipse model-driven projects

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants