Question regarding license

[swaroopar]

Description

Hello Team, Thanks for this great library. We have been using the openapi-typescript-codegen library before and we are migrating to this library now.

We found that both the old and this library depends on [json-schema-ref-parser](https://github.com/APIDevTools/json-schema-ref-parser) and this library has a special treeware license - https://github.com/APIDevTools/json-schema-ref-parser?tab=readme-ov-file#license

Currently we are building an open-source project too under Eclipse Foundation and unfortunately using a dependent package is not considered as really open-source according to OSI. You can find some discussions here as well - https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/12935/is-treeware-gpl-compatible

Could you please suggest if there is a way to use this library without including this "not-fully" open source dependent library?

OpenAPI specification (optional)

No response

Configuration

No response

System information (optional)

No response

[mrlubos]

Thanks for opening an issue @swaroopar. I'll have a look if we can move away from that dependency, we would need to find an alternative for dereferencing specs

[swaroopar]

Thank you @mrlubos. I fear that this dependency could be a problem to many. I oversaw it until today since the json-schema-ref-parser library at one place says that it is open sourced under MIT and then in the README, there is a special clause.

[mrlubos]

I reached out to @JamesMessinger, I'll let you know if I hear back

[mrlubos]

@swaroopar James no longer works on APIDevTools, but he provided his understanding.

Treeware isn't a license. It's just a style of software distribution, like "freeware", "shareware", etc. All of the APIDevTools projects are licensed under the MIT license and nothing else. The MIT license is the only license listed on the GitHub repos, the NPM packages, and in the LICENSE file for each project. The Treeware verbiage in the ReadMe file is just an encouragement to donate a tree. It's not binding or enforceable at all, nor is it intended to be.

I also tried to reach out to @philsturgeon who's an active maintainer but haven't heard back yet, hence the delay in my response to you. I will close this issue for now, feel free to reopen if you think more information is required.

[swaroopar]

@mrlubos Thank you very much for following up. Do you know if there is any documentation available online which confirms this understanding?

[mrlubos]

Best source for this would be Phil or @jamesmills (I reached out to James too and will update you if I hear back)

[jamesmills]

Hey all, bit late to the party but the explanation above is sound. The Treeware licence is not a contractual obligation. It's just something to try raise awareness and help the world. The MIT licence is the main licence in this instance.

[mrlubos]

Thanks for stopping by and confirming @jamesmills!

[swaroopar]

@jamesmills @mrlubos thank you for the answer.