search

meh / rust-bdf

BDF format handling.
9 stars 6 forks source link

License Change? #12

Open zicklag opened 3 years ago

zicklag commented 3 years ago

I just realized that this repo uses the WTFPL license, which I'm not sure I'm confortable using in my project.

The first reason is that I don't like the fact that the license uses a curse word in the name and description. It's just unnecessary.

The second reason is that I think it would be safer for people building software using this crate to use the typical MIT + Apache 2.0 license.

Otherwise, if you really like the, "do what you want with it" model, you could use the CC0 license, which dedicates the work to the public domain. That has caveats, though, and is actually more risky for people using the software than if you used the Apache 2.0 license. According to GNU:

If you want to release your non-software work to the public domain, we recommend you use CC0. For works of software it is not recommended, as CC0 has a term expressly stating it does not grant you any patent licenses.

Because of this lack of patent grant, we encourage you to be careful about using software under this license; you should first consider whether the licensor might want to sue you for patent infringement. If the developer is refusing users patent licenses, the program is in effect a trap for users and users should avoid the program.

The Apache 2.0 license has protections against the patent problem, so that I know that I can't be sued for patent infringement by the author of a library I use. GNU says about Apache 2.0:

These include certain patent termination and indemnification provisions. The patent termination provision is a good thing, which is why we recommend the Apache 2.0 license for substantial programs over other lax permissive licenses.

They do say "for substantial programs", though so in this case it may not be necessary for this project and CCO would just be fine.

We would have to get permission from all of the current 4 contributors to make a license change, but that should be easy enough.

What do you think?

zicklag commented 3 years ago

For what it's worth, I ended up using my own quick BDF parser that fit into 1 file and less than 300 lines ( see #13 ) so if you don't want to change the license, I've got what I need for my project covered anyway.

msrd0 commented 3 years ago

As one of the current 4 contributors, I support a license change to MIT and/or Apache-2.0, or the Unlicense if you want to make it public domain. IMHO, the CC0 license is a poor fit for source code and better used on images and other assets.

I consider the WTFPL more of a joke than a license, so if you can remove it, please do.