Fix project license

[amitkrxyz]

Bruno's repository is licensed under the MIT License, yet the Flathub page erroneously indicates that it is proprietary. I was confused for a while upon encountering this.

[starsep]

@helloanoop Currently https://flathub.org/apps/com.usebruno.Bruno looks like that :fearful:

Could you change the license here to MIT? Unless it's not an error and you intend to add paid closed-source features to Flatpak release.

[ThatOneCalculator]

+1 on this. Initially got turned off from Bruno until I clicked on its links...

[regunakyle]

Bruno is still listed as proprietary in Flathub :thinking:

Is the fix not yet pushed to Flathub?

[helloanoop]

Is the fix not yet pushed to Flathub?

It is. But it seems to not be picked by flathub automatically.

I must also add that, we will be introducing Golden Edition with some paid addons. Which means the builds in the future will have features of Golden Edition (which is closed)

So, I am not sure if its valid to mention the entirety of the codebase as open (specifically flathub being a package artifact repo) Perhaps marking it as opensource and adding that some part of code is closed might be a middle ground.

If you are interested to know about the monetization strategy and long term plans of Bruno, I am documenting the journey publicly in this discussion thread: https://github.com/usebruno/bruno/discussions/269

See https://github.com/usebruno/bruno/issues/1398#issuecomment-1894342997

[ThatOneCalculator]

Perhaps marking it as opensource and adding that some part of code is closed might be a middle ground.

You'd need to distribute two separate binaries, otherwise it would all be considered proprietary.

[helloanoop]

You'd need to distribute two separate binaries, otherwise it would all be considered proprietary.

Thank you for clarifying @ThatOneCalculator !

[Abdull]

Flatpak / Flathub project license documentation and requirements:

• https://docs.flathub.org/docs/for-app-authors/requirements/#license
• https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/chap-Metadata.html#tag-project_license
• https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2-draft/SPDX-license-expressions/

@helloanoop , https://github.com/flathub/com.usebruno.Bruno/blob/5054bf69efa358a3a00530324f9c39e90ee8d543/com.usebruno.Bruno.metainfo.xml#L12C20-L12C35

Notice the minus character at the end of LicenseRef-MIT-. This looks like a mistake to me. Maybe that is the reason why Bruno's Flathub page still shows "Proprietary" as its license.

Maybe just change it to LicenseRef-MIT or just MIT ... compare to some randomly chosen other Flathub-hosted Flatpak app which uses MIT: https://github.com/flathub/org.firo.firo-qt/blob/014b5f51cb6c75e31b4e32de361c256af551b1e2/org.firo.firo-qt.metainfo.xml#L6 ( https://flathub.org/apps/org.firo.firo-qt )

[AligningEntropy]

(copying my comment from the #16 to be here in the related issue) This appears to have been reverted in Release 1.18.0 #22 and is back to showing the proprietary license badge. If the goal is to have a dual license as the flatpak description

Majority of our features are free and have been opensourced under the MIT license

AND this commit indicate.

Then this license should utilize the expression operators such as AND. This would result in the license being something like <project_license>MIT AND LicenseRef-proprietary=https://usebruno.com/license</project_license> (I could not find where the actual proprietary license was located to update the link to, so that would need adjustment once identified)

If not, then this change needs to be re-applied such that the license tag is once again <project_license>MIT</project_license>

[AligningEntropy]

I have created a PR #27 to address this regression.