Choice of Open Source License

TwanoO67 / ngx-admin-lte

Admin LTE for Angular 2/4/6/8 as a NPM package

MIT License

109 stars 47 forks source link

Choice of Open Source License #18

Closed catull closed 7 years ago

catull commented 7 years ago

WTFPL is anarchic and offensive.

It is your right, dear maintainer, to keep it that way, or to switch to a different one.

However, the current license is a deterrent for me.

Since I take Open Source software development seriously, both as a beneficiary as well as a contributor, I certainly cannot identify with nonchalance.

Please consider alternative license models, such as

APL - Apache License 2.0
BSD2 - BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" or "FreeBSD" license
BSD3 - BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" license
CDDL - Common Development and Distribution License
EPL - Eclipse Public License
GPL - GNU General Public License
ISC - Internet Systems Consortium
LGPL - GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License
MIT - MIT license
MPL - Mozilla Public License 2.0

My favourite ones are: BSD 3-clause, BSD 2-clause, APL, MIT, EPL, MIT or ISC. I would still stick around with *GPL.

CDDL is out, though.

Choose wisely.

xMase commented 7 years ago

I like WTFPL license, why is it offensive for you?

catull commented 7 years ago

Far more important is the "anarchic" part, which deters me.

I cannot associate with anarchic views. It shows no pride in what you do.

Why does one still invest time and brain-power without caring what happens to/with the software ? What is the motivation ?

As far as the offensive part is concerned, I'd like to show my appreciation for "profanity" with a scene from the "Big Lebowski": Cuss words

I can deal with it in only one context: no-fuss comedy. That's where I draw the line.

Had I paid more attention to the license, I would not have contributed. It is too late now, I have made some contributions, which I will not revoke.

My contributions are small in comparison; the project will carry on, no matter what happens to the license.

One more thing: both AdminLTE and Angular are licensed under MIT. No obligation there.

xMase commented 7 years ago

the community is divided on this license and a license should not be a reason for division, into the open source world. I think that the admin repo should change the license to MIT and take all community power.

TwanoO67 commented 7 years ago

I just read the thread suggested by @catull And I wasn't aware of the "don't blame me" missing part of this license.

And I'm ok with @xMase this should not be a division reason.

So listening to both of you, I will change licensing to MIT in the next release

catull commented 7 years ago

Thanks to both of you.

I am glad this is issue is treated appropriately.

gsouf commented 6 years ago

https://opensource.org/licenses/Fair