GPL-3.0 license

[ecnalyr]

Back in April, a PR was introduced that made the license for this gem GPL-3.0.

The PR in question: #30

Was this a mistake?

GPL-3.0 has implications that seem out of character for this project.

Some info about GPL-3.0: https://choosealicense.com/licenses/gpl-3.0/

[musybite]

We really should get @astro 's word on it, but i believe it was honestly overlooked.
As far as i understand, Socksify was initially released under Ruby license. Initially Ruby license included explicit dual-licensing clause that allowed to distribute Ruby under GPL, but starting from 1.9.3, said clause was switched to variant of BSD license. That was done exactly because of GPL v3 implications.

References: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_License , https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/trunk/COPYING

@astro could we get your opinion? IMO if you have no special reasons for GPL v3, this project could continue to be distributed under same terms as Ruby, i.e. Ruby License + 2-clause BSDL.

[kornate]

It looks like this was an oversight. I know we haven't heard from @astro yet, but GPL3 is restrictive, has licensing compatibility issues, and enforces inherited obligations on derived works.

Looking back on this after 5 years... as @musybite said, if there are no special reasons for GPL v3, it is wisest to distribute the project under the same terms as Ruby, i.e., the Ruby License + 2-clause BSD License.

[astro]

Calling all contributors: @MatzFan @ddollar @hotchpotch @codener @dub357 @sticnarf @FlorinAsavoaie @bachue @awakia @ChristopherThorpe @MichaelXavier

Do you agree with changing this project's license to 2-clause BSD?

[codener]

Yes please!

[MatzFan]

No objects to license change from me.