search

hannesg / uri_template

A URI template library for ruby.
168 stars 84 forks source link

Affero GPLv3 prevents use in many cases #12

Closed bhollis closed 10 years ago

bhollis commented 10 years ago

I just saw that this library is using the Affero GPLv3 license. That license makes this library unsuitable for use except in very narrow situations (when combined into a compatibly-licensed application that also includes functionality to serve the source code of this library to users).

Ruby code is generally licensed with a more permissive license like MIT, which would not force GPLv3 terms on users of that license.

hannesg commented 10 years ago

Hi bhollis

I actually prefer free software over open software and therefore chose GPL deliberately. However, I don't want to keep people from using the software if they have good intents. Do you have a specific usecase?

bhollis commented 10 years ago

My intention was to use it as part of the Middleman blog plugin: https://github.com/middleman/middleman-blog, but I don't want to apply the terms of the AGPLv3 to my MIT-licensed software (or to Middleman itself, which is also MIT). Middleman is used in commercial environments where GPLv3 is unacceptable.

bhollis commented 10 years ago

Note that this is no longer a huge deal as I have already switched my code to use addressable, but I wanted to file this issue just to make you aware that AGPLv3 licensing is in conflict with most Ruby library/application licenses.

jasonporritt commented 10 years ago

I recently ran into the AGPLv3 licensing of this gem. I would love to see the license changed to something better-aligned with the Rubygems community at large.

We're using Hyperclient in some batch-processing tasks that interact with an API we've built. Hyperclient is MIT-licensed software, but it carries a dependency on uri_template. While it seems like we should be able to use uri_template after reading through the AGPLv3 text and various interpretations (we're not creating a derivative work, only using the library via its defined API), the license doesn't lend the kind of confidence I'm accustomed to from the Ruby license (2-clause BSD) or MIT license.

We'd love to continue using it, but may not be able to on account of others' feelings about the license.

hannesg commented 10 years ago

Hi All

I'm a bit sad about this. Having a gem with MIT licence depending on a non-MIT gem is certainly a strange state. While I still like the AGPL, I've changed the licence to MIT with release 0.7.0 .

Have fun using it :)