search

gadicc / meteor-headers

Access HTTP headers on both server and client. Client IP with proxy support.
https://atmospherejs.com/gadicohen/headers
GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0
61 stars 21 forks source link

missing license #21

Closed Nemo64 closed 10 years ago

Nemo64 commented 10 years ago

I hope I don't annoy you by now with all these reports

I noticed that there is no mention of a license. Which means it falls under the normal copyright law. "This means that you retain all rights to your source code and that nobody else may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work."

That site is nice to choose one btw. I personally prefere the MIT license. ;)

gadicc commented 10 years ago

Haha no, it's good... these are all very important issues, thanks for the push.

Cool, I didn't know about that site, very useful. I went with the GPLv3, which I think is better for this package in particular, although the MIT license is definitely preferable for some of my other projects, thanks!

In 0.0.17.

Nemo64 commented 10 years ago

The thing is with gpl is, every other package/javascript part that uses your code has to be under GLP or LGPL too which would mean i can't distribute my package under MIT while you use GPL. For that reason LGPL was developed.

Also it requires a copyright notice. This is normally done by leaving a note in the source code. However Meteor strips these in --production mode. Uglify itself does provide a way to keep comments, but i'm not sure how to trigger that in meteor.

Meteor itself was under that pressure once link btw.

gadicc commented 10 years ago

Good point! I switched now to the LGPL, because I like the idea that distributed derivative work has to be open-source too. Does this solve the issue for you? Willing to discuss further if not. There's a Copyright notice on the README, hope this is sufficient :> Commit https://github.com/gadicohen/meteor-headers/commit/e2b083aab34dce3997801eddf65a381dccee7b3e.

Nemo64 commented 10 years ago

Much better yes ;)

The only problem I see right now is the js blob meteor creates. As i mentioned, (L)GPL requires a copyright notice which is fine but there is none in the source so the final js blob meteor creates does not contain this notice which would mean that whoever uses your script would have to manually give credit to you. I doubt that everyone will read the license and give proper credit to.

Also the js blob of meteor itself could be problematic. I'm not a lawyer but removing comments and white-spaces is a modification imo. I don't know, that's why I stick to simple licenses. I understand that there are benefits to GPL but I don't now all the restrictions that come with it.

gadicc commented 10 years ago

Ah, well, I think I'll live if people are distributing code based on modifications they've done to the minified source. That's kind of crazy :> I'm more interested if someone forks the project or distributes code that includes a modification of it; I expect to see attribution and an LGPL license.

As for minification in general, I guess I understand the problems, but let's just say that as the copyright holder I'm not going to prosecute anyone who serves minified versions of it. If someone is serving a minified version of derivative code, the license requires them to make the original, unminified source with their changes, available.

Nemo64 commented 10 years ago 
mrt add headers
meteor run --production

And you already have a minified version without reference to you and without a way to access the original. That may be a problem of meteors bundling itself though.

Also I understand your interest, but the License tells what would rights would be applied if any right problems occur. I hope that will never happen (and it probably won't) but if it happens the one using your script would have a disadvantage if there project isn't open sourced somehow (where the copyleft can apply).

That isn't really a problem to me (as my projects are usually open source) but it is worth thinking about ;)

gadicc commented 10 years ago

I still don't consider serving minified files to be "distribution" (I understand the definition and agree it's not clear cut, but, for all intents and purposes...). Non open source projects are welcome to use the code. However, if they start distributing "Solution X", which includes a modified version of headers, I expect the modified source to be available somewhere with attribution. I don't consider anyone using "Solution X" and serving it minified to be in violation of the intention of the license... I understand that if we nit pick, it's a violation, but I think it's understood that this is not the point... everyone is using minified GPLed software on the web. It's true GNU have provided ways to solve this properly to prevent any confusion. But I think we're ok for now. Your points are correct, and if it scares away certain ultra-cautious people, I guess I'm ok with it... although those same people could also contact me to use the code under a different license.

Nemo64 commented 10 years ago

Ahh... now I see your point with "distribution". Ok there we would really need a lawyer to figure that one out. :D But under this new light I don't see any problem anymore (and if one occurs this thread would be a good reference)

Thanks for that discussion ;)

gadicc commented 10 years ago

Haha sure. To be accurate though, you're absolutely correct in everything you said. And from some googling, I see the issue has come up before with some (annoying but legally sound) solutions. I'm just trying to be practical though.. although they "could", I don't think anyone is going to press charges for serving minified versions of code.. and I think it could be a debate in court too over "what a reasonable person would think", etc. But IANAL :)