Would you consider changing the license?

[hbf]

First of all, thanks a lot for this very useful tool; I very much like documenting my code with a modern documentation syntax.

I would like to use the tool but the project I am working on doesn't allow GPL3. I am wondering whether you would be willing to change the license to something else, possibly the Apache license?

From the Github history I see that GPL3 is needed because of PlantUML. I quickly checked their website and see that they allow the Apache License, see here.

In case you could imagine making such a change, I'd be happy to come up with a PR, of course.

[jfallows]

+1 :+1:

[Abnaxos]

Well, generally, I'm open for that. I don't like the GPL very much myself, I deem the concept of "forced freedom" contradictory.

However, I don't really see why. The Doclet is a compile-level tool. The virus effect of the GPL does not extend to the output of GPLed tools. Like it's perfectly OK to compile and publish closed source code using GCC, it's also perfectly OK to generate the docs for a closed source project using pegdown-doclet. The GPL poses no restrictions to the input and/or output of GPLed tools.

So, as long as you're not deriving a new or extended tool from pegdown-doclet, the GPL is no issue.

If you're actually deriving something, I'm obviously curious about what it could be. ;)

[ddimtirov]

Some organizations have blanket policies, prohibiting using GPL-licensed products regardless of the use-case (the claim is that this way they eliminate the risk of inappropriate discretion).

[hbf]

+1

[tsjensen]

:+1:

[Abnaxos]

GPL it is.

It's a compile-level tool. As such, the GPL neither affects the license of the input nor the license of the output. That way I'm sure not to clash with PlantUML's GPL (which – BTW – is also a compile-level tool).

Its perfectly legal to use it for documenting commercial or otherwise closed-source code with a proprietary license.