search

walling / unorm

JavaScript Unicode 8.0 Normalization - NFC, NFD, NFKC, NFKD.
http://git.io/unorm
Other
379 stars 45 forks source link

"Fix" wrong dual licensing description #52

Open matsuza opened 2 years ago

matsuza commented 2 years ago

As the original author of unorm.js, I should have written "Dual licensed under the MIT (MIT-LICENSE.txt) or GPL (GPL-LICENSE.txt) licenses."

As unorm.js has never been changed since I wrote it, I think we can change the licensing description.

Fixes #51

hijiangtao commented 1 year ago

Is it possible to update it? I think it's clear to use OR rather than AND in LICENSE. :-)

phadej commented 1 year ago

This is somewhat unfortunate as I contributed to this library in 2014 assuming it's MIT AND GPL.

While some my contributions are trivial, some aren't.

I.e. I don't think it's possible not possible to update license now, without explicitly asking all the contributors since 2013 to sign off. I have to think myself.

phadej commented 1 year ago

Is it possible to update it? I think it's clear to use OR rather than AND in LICENSE. :-)

AND means that terms of both licenses have to be satisfied. It might pop up in compound software where for example one part is clearly MIT and part is GPL. (So it's possible to extract just MIT part and use without GPL restrictions).

OR means that you are free to choose either. It might make sense in MIT OR GPL case too, for example MIT doesn't have any patent provisions, but GPL has, so people which can choose GPL could opt to use it to avoid any patent shenanigans.

hijiangtao commented 1 year ago

This is somewhat unfortunate as I contributed to this library in 2014 assuming it's MIT AND GPL.

While some my contributions are trivial, some aren't.

I.e. I don't think it's possible not possible to update license now, without explicitly asking all the contributors since 2013 to sign off. I have to think myself.

Thanks for replying. I think the library should keep the LICENSE and its' declaration in package.json the same, whatever it's AND or OR, however, it's OR inside package.json, and AND in LICENSE, it's really confusing, which one should I take into consider? So I think it should be updated whether it's OR or AND.

hijiangtao commented 1 year ago

@phadej In my opinion, if some of your code uses library with GPL LICENSE, then you need to append it in LICENSE, which is "AND", otherwise, it only depends on you to choose a specific LICENSE for this library? On the other hand, I may wonder why not specify GPL if you want to use GPL for this library, since "MIT AND GPL" here equals to only "GPL"? :-)

phadej commented 1 year ago

Wait, maybe it was OR always: as I added it as or in https://github.com/walling/unorm/commit/58f8b33c9e634288c707c231e4a16f390288ec07 so I retract my previous comment https://github.com/walling/unorm/pull/52#issuecomment-1649492296

And "and" vs "or" in LICENSE.md is just ambiguous English. ... and I think that new wording is not at all less ambiguous.

We should something like: (AND)

You should satisfy terms of both licenses. You need to comply with both.

or (OR)

You may use either of the licenses, you don't need to comply with both.

hijiangtao commented 1 year ago

Wait, maybe it was OR always: as I added it as or in 58f8b33 so I retract my previous comment #52 (comment)

And "and" vs "or" in LICENSE.md is just ambiguous English. ... and I think that new wording is not at all less ambiguous.

We should something like: (AND)

You should satisfy terms of both licenses. You need to comply with both.

or (OR)

You may use either of the licenses, you don't need to comply with both.

Well, that's the point I want to figure out, I may wonder if you are pointing out the "AND" in LICENSE is an ambiguous way, and we actually should accept new wording (like in package.json) as a "OR" way?

krzysztofspilka commented 7 months ago

Hi @matsuza, any update on this?

Edit: unfortunately we had to remove unorm from hyperformula https://github.com/handsontable/hyperformula/issues/1370