Closed franciscolourenco closed 4 years ago
I think this falls under the exception of a well separated program as this is used for building and locally serving an app, but not at runtime. I'm by no means a law expert, its just how I've understood this clause to mean that application source wouldn't have to be published if this plugin were to be used as a part of the build routine. I think if necessary I could convert it to a LGPLv3 license specifying the use through the vue-cli plugin interface?
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs...
Is this currently a blocker you're facing, or just a general note about license permissiveness?
I agree that it falls into that exception, but I'm no lawyer and there is a risk for different interpretations. Out of 60 direct dependencies in my project, this is the only GPL, with 55 being MIT, so I was wondering if there is a good reason for it. It's not a blocker, just a concern. Thanks!
Any chance of a resolution on this?
I've analyzed my node_modules
dir and out of ~3000 packages this was the only GPL :/
Thanks!
LGPLv3 would work :)
Sorry to ping again but this has became a blocker. Thanks!
just published a release 0.25.0 that is not licensed under lgplv3.
Thanks!
GPLv3 says that larger works, which include this package, need to make their source code available under the same license. This sounds quite a lot for a development package, which can prevent it from being used by many projects.
Would you consider switching to MIT license?
Cheers!