Licensing

[oliversalzburg]

I noticed some problems with the licenses set for some Strider modules:

OliverSalzburg@oliver-pc MINGW64 /d/strider-workspace
$ grep license */package.json
dirkeeper/package.json:  "license": "BSD-2-Clause",
go-strider/package.json:  "license": "BSD",
mocha-selenium/package.json:  "license": "MIT",
strider/package.json:  "license": "BSD-3-Clause",
strider-bitbucket/package.json:  "license": "MIT",
strider-blanket/package.json:  "license": "MIT",
strider-browserstack/package.json:  "license": "BSD",
strider-custom/package.json:  "license": "BSD",
strider-detection-rules/package.json:  "license": "BSD-3-Clause",
strider-dev/package.json:  "license": "MIT",
strider-docker-runner/package.json:  "license": "MIT",
strider-env/package.json:  "license": "BSD",
strider-extension-loader/package.json:  "license": "BSD"
strider-git/package.json:  "license": "MIT",
strider-github/package.json:  "license": "MIT",
strider-heroku/package.json:  "license": "MIT",
strider-jelly/package.json:  "license": "BSD",
strider-local/package.json:  "license": "MIT",
strider-node/package.json:  "license": "BSD-3-Clause",
strider-python/package.json:  "license": "BSD",
strider-qunit/package.json:  "license": "BSD",
strider-remote-drone/package.json:  "license": "MIT",
strider-remote-worker/package.json:  "license": "BSD",
strider-runner-core/package.json:  "license": "MIT",
strider-travis/package.json:  "license": "MIT",
strider-webhooks/package.json:  "license": "MIT",

First of all, BSD is not a valid SPDX license. The correct replacement would likely be BSD-3-Clause, which is used in the main strider repo and, to my knowledge, Strider should be "BSD licensed" (that's what Wikipedia says anyway). However, the LICENSE.md in the strider repo is very obviously the MIT license.

So, which license is the correct one?

Second, the license, that is deemed correct for the strider project, should be applied to all modules and the correct SPDX string should be put into the package.json.

In case there is a vote for a license, I vote MIT.

[knownasilya]

I'm fine with MIT or ISC https://gist.github.com/indexzero/10602128

[oliversalzburg]

So, how can we make progress with this? I don't expect that much more feedback on the issue.

For several projects, it's not clear what license is actually being used right now. In theory, we'd have to contact all contributors and ask them if they're fine with the "new" license, wouldn't we?

[knownasilya]

Yeah I think so. @Strider-CD/collaborators @Strider-CD/core

[smashwilson]

I'm also fine with either MIT or ISC.

[michaelmior]

I would personally prefer MIT.

[niallo]

As the original creator of Strider, I should chime in here.

I used the ISC or MIT license (forget which). Basically the same licensing as the OpenBSD project.

Either is acceptable to me. Nobody has mentioned it, but I am not a fan of GPL type licensing and never use it in my open source software.

I believe that companies should be able to use and modify my free software as they wish as long as they give attribution in the source code.

Good luck!

On Friday, July 15, 2016, Michael Mior notifications@github.com wrote:

I would personally prefer MIT.

— You are receiving this because you are on a team that was mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/Strider-CD/strider/issues/953#issuecomment-232958792, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AANUMgbEKPmVgFsN9no2t-mm6wEMlVXbks5qV5LcgaJpZM4JNS5p .

Niall O'Higgins W: http://niallohiggins.com E: n@niallo.me T: @niallohiggins

[oliversalzburg]

Here's a quick overview of licenses declared in package.json and LICENSE files: https://gist.github.com/oliversalzburg/af05b759197e864d5ad29cacac9841ad

Generated with https://github.com/oliversalzburg/strider-dev/blob/master/bin/license.js