Racket relicensing

[vielmetti]

This was a move from LGPL to Apache/MIT

https://blog.racket-lang.org/2019/11/completing-racket-s-relicensing-effort.html

"Since we want to provide a clear license and to promote the use of Racket everywhere, a new, more-permissive license is the right choice for Racket."

[marclaporte]

@vielmetti It is a license change, but is it a rug pull? What is the negative impact on users?

[vielmetti]

@marclaporte Reading the document referenced above closely, it seems to boil down to this

Several large organizations refused to have anything to do with code licensed under any variant of GPL

When the relicensing occurred, 2 of about 350 contributors refused to have their work relicensed (specific reasons were unspecified).

This probably doesn't qualify as a "rug pull" after closer look, unless you were one of the 2 contributors who felt strongly enough about software freedom to prefer GPL to MIT/BSD.

[marclaporte]

I know what you mean. I was part of the team for changing the Bootstrap license from Apache to MIT: twbs/bootstrap#2054
We contacted hundreds of past contributors. Almost all were fine with the change because the licenses are quite similar. A few past contributors preferred Apache but they didn't want to hinder what the project leadership wanted, and supported by almost everyone. So they gave us their permission. As you wrote, probably not enough for a "rug pull".

@caniszczyk please opine.