Closed abh closed 6 years ago
The choice of GPL3 was deliberate as I believe any modification should be shared with the user and with the community. Happy to hear discussions beyond that it is incompatible/restrictive though.
Since no response going to close it down. Happy for you to open again if you wish to discuss it.
On Feb 9, 2018, at 4:53, Ben Boyter notifications@github.com wrote:
The choice of GPL3 was deliberate as I believe any modification should be shared with the user and with the community. Happy to hear discussions beyond that it is incompatible/restrictive though.
Hi,
Obviously it’s your choice — just for a tool like this it really seemed like a curious choice. I am sure that my thoughts are colored by my particular experience and background, but all the same.
At my dayjob our group made a similar tool to keep track of licenses (and the appropriate reviews/approval process). We’re generally not allowed to contribute back to GPLv3 projects, so I didn’t look at your tool past seeing the license. From my perspective it seems likely that many potential users (and thus contributors) of your tool would be ones in a similar situation.
Google has a good overview of licenses from a corporate perspective: https://opensource.google.com/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#restricted
Ask
I guess I was just not comfortable the idea that someone could take what is presented here and package it up with modifications without them flowing back into the community, hence the choice.
I can understand why some may not want to contribute back to it because of that but I think I am prepared to deal with it.
Perhaps if there is enough support asking for the change I will consider it.
Thought it over.
Now dual licensed MIT and UNLICENSE
It seems a little paradoxical to have a tool to help manage licenses itself be under a particularly incompatible/restrictive license. :-)