Closed bobsaggirty closed 6 years ago
Thanks for your comment. I will close the issue since is not something we will do now.
Would you consider re-licensing the project to a more permissive MIT or Apache 2.0 license. It seems like some of the other projects like broid-kit are already using an Apache 2.0 license, however, the fact that they rely on integrations is an issue.
Regarding to the licence using "broid-kit" is not an issue with the licence of the integrations. Backdoor licence is not exist (https://www.mongodb.com/blog/post/the-agpl)
Overview
What project is this issue for?:
integrations
Is this a bug, security, feature request, or feedback: Feedback
Details
First, thanks for the work put into building and open sourcing this library!
The AGPL license on this project is pretty restrictive, especially when used in the context of Node applications where code is not truly "linked". There is some controversy over how the AGPL would actually be executed for these cases, but Google has out right banned the use of AGPL software in their organization due to liability issues: https://opensource.google.com/docs/thirdparty/licenses/#agpl-affero-gpl-not-allowed of having to release any proprietary source code that might touch the AGPL code. Because of Google's stance on this, many developers and companies refuse to use / contribute to AGPL projects.
Would you consider re-licensing the project to a more permissive MIT or Apache 2.0 license. It seems like some of the other projects like
broid-kit
are already using an Apache 2.0 license, however, the fact that they rely onintegrations
is an issue.Feature Overview
Choosing a more permissive license.
Steps to Reproduce
LICENSE.md
Observed
AGPL
Expected
MIT or Apache 2.0