search

rachavz / reflections

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/reflections
Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License
0 stars 0 forks source link

WTFPL license compatibility issues #190

Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Hi,

while in non-corporate/OSS environment, this WTFPL might seem somewhat funny... 
in commercial environment it creates some problems. Although it lets you do 
"everything", it is not an accepted license under the OSD definition (pls see 
http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical ), and probably never will be. Some 
corporate software buyers have strict policies - OSS is only something that is 
licensed under one of the licenses in that list. It will take a lot of 
explaining to convince someone to accept something else.

If you wanted to make your users' lives easier, switching to Apache2 (or 
something similar) license would be a definite improvement. Thanks!

Original issue reported on code.google.com by san...@zeroturnaround.com on 7 Apr 2015 at 9:51

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
From time to time I get these kind of requests... 

I understand what you mean by 'probably never will be' and 'it will take a lot 
of explaining'. I really do.
As developers (and humans) IMHO we should stick with the lean, agile and 
dynamic attitude. This library is free without any category. It's not mine, 
we're simply sharing.

The problem is not in the corporate for itself, but in the 'corporate 
thinking', which cares less for people but for processes, and simply don't know 
how to eat it, although it's written black on white, and repeated over and over 
again - YOU CAN DO WTF YOU WANT TO.

Original comment by ronm...@gmail.com on 25 Apr 2015 at 3:54

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Hi,

thanks for your reply.
Yes I completely understand and agree that this is somewhat ridiculous, and if 
you look at the thing substantially, it is obvious that this library is OK to 
use. The thing is, if a piece of enterprise software has 100+ 3rd party 
dependencies, and it needs a legal checkbox "dependencies are OSD compliant", 
nobody will have time to go through each of these 100 deps and evaluate them 
one-by-one. That's why the OSD list is valuable - it boils the evaluation down 
to just matching the licenses against a closed list.

But I understand this is a principal decision and not going to be changed. 
Filed the request to try to exclude reflections library to the bigger library 
through which reflections was pulled in as transitive dependency for us, it 
will hopefully get sorted.

Cheers,
Sander.

Original comment by san...@zeroturnaround.com on 27 Apr 2015 at 7:15