License change #379

New Issue

Closed

opened 2024-03-27 10:53:20 +01:00 by blacklight · 1 comment

blacklight commented

2024-03-27 10:53:20 +01:00

Owner

s/MIT/AGPL/

blacklight added this to the v0.60.0 milestone 2024-03-27 10:53:20 +01:00

blacklight added the

documentation

label 2024-03-27 10:53:20 +01:00

blacklight added this to the core project 2024-03-27 10:53:20 +01:00

blacklight self-assigned this 2024-03-27 10:53:24 +01:00

blacklight commented

2024-03-27 16:18:49 +01:00

Author

Owner

See responses on this thread.

After some consideration with people who understand licenses better than myself, I've opted to keep the current MIT license - GPL would make it challenging to still keep integrations that rely on non-open dependencies in the same repo, and AGPL would make it challenging even to keep them in a separate non-free repo and then combine them and run them together as a service.

In the future I may consider an Apache License, but for now I'm happy with MIT - also because I don't care much of the patent protection schemes offered by the Apache License, as I don't believe in software patents being a useful thing anyway.

See responses [on this thread](https://manganiello.social/@fabio/posts/AgFRioPiXLxoyx9kI4). After some consideration with people who understand licenses better than myself, I've opted to keep the current MIT license - GPL would make it challenging to still keep integrations that rely on non-open dependencies in the same repo, and AGPL would make it challenging even to keep them in a separate non-free repo and then combine them and run them together as a service. In the future I may consider an Apache License, but for now I'm happy with MIT - also because I don't care much of the patent protection schemes offered by the Apache License, as I don't believe in software patents being a useful thing anyway.

blacklight closed this issue

2024-03-27 16:18:49 +01:00