License for package


#1

Simple question: are there any “social conventions” I should be aware of when it comes to licenses for Atom packages? Right now the package I’m developing (LaTeXTools) uses the license added by default by the plugin generator. I am thinking about switching to GPLv2 because I would like to include latex-cwl completion files from the Kile project. A user kindly submiitted patches, so I’m ready to go, except that I’m not sure about the licensing implications.

Thanks!


#2

I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking … but as far as switching licenses, it is generally considered good form to get permission (or at least acknowledgement) from prior contributors before changing how their contribution is licensed to others.


#3

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. What I meant is this: is there any restriction on licenses for Atom packages? Or even just preferences—e.g., use MIT rather than GPL licenses?

Of course I will seek permission from contributors (at this stage they are not that many).


#4

There isn’t any technical restriction on licenses for Atom packages. There is the practical limitation that in order for it to show up in the packages list on https://atom.io and in the apm tool, it currently needs to be in a public repository on GitHub.

From what I’ve seen most packages employ the default MIT license, though I haven’t polled people for their actual preferences … maybe people are just taking the default? I also did a quick check and it appears that the Kile project (if indeed I found the right one) is dual-licensed BSD and GPLv2, so a license change may not be necessary?

Whatever the case, we want to support choosing the license that works best for you and your contributors.