You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there a particular reason you moved to a GPL license? This prevents us from using this (even indirectly). Could you change the license to Apache 2.0 ?
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, I've been gradually moving all my libraries to the GPL since it ensures that source-code changes are shared back, but I'm happy to provide a sub-license if you need it.
What prevents you from using GPL-based projects "even indirectly"? I've run into other people who misunderstand how the GPL works (see: jescalan/accord#180 (comment)), so I wonder if that's the same thing you're talking about.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've read the attached GPL.pdf file. I don't see any reason to create such a hassle for companies, considering they have to consult with a lawyer if their particular use case of the GPL program is "embeding", "modifying" or simply linking.
If you think about it, using webpack to transform and then embed the GPL application probably causes "infection" for your entire application. Even for the slim chance that it doesn't, why would a company want to risk it?
For regular licensed programs, I would advise to drop all GPL licenses and find an alternative dependency.
I don't see any companies running here to create PRs for your code (which is what you wanted with GPL), but rather looking for alternative dependencies and packages.
If you want people to freely use your code, use a sane license.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, the idea of "infection" is FUD. Using webpack would create what the text of the GPL calls an "aggregate":
A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.
I doubt that a company would even pay to consult with a lawyer on that matter, since it's explained right in the license... And that should be obvious, given the number of companies that build on the GPL-licensed Linux kernel.
I don't see any companies running here to create PRs for your code
I don't see anyone running to make PRs on this library, which is exactly the same number of PRs I got while it was MIT-licensed, so my rate of PRs is unchanged. That's probably because this library is unpopular, rather than having anything to do with the license.
If you want people to freely use your code, use a sane license.
The GPL is the only license that ensures people can freely use my code. Without it, people (including myself) could close-off future development and make the code proprietary... Something I've seen multiple companies attempt to do with derivative works of WordPress (another GPL-licensed package).
Anyway, what is your use-case for this library? If you have some strange situation that requires you to modify the source of fobject, release those modifications in a compiled product, and never release those changes to the public, then I might be able to provide a sub-license.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Webpack does not only aggregate, but transforms source code (even libraries). We use gulp-less which depends on accord and which depends on this package. Right now, instead of trying to risk it if our use case is "infection" free or not (and I think it's very debatable), we'll be better off switching off gulp-less and saving the headache..
Sorry, I know you work hard to maintain and write open-source, I do too. But I want people to freely use my code without any headaches...
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
gulp-less doesn't put any of the source-code of fobject into the resulting build, so you're not even creating an aggregate with fobject. Since you're not including the source of fobject in the website you're presumably building, you could even make modifications to fobject without releasing them back to the public.
In this situation, fobject is effectively a build tool, and thinking that it has any implication on the license of the resulting website is as absurd as thinking that a program compiled with Make or gcc (both GPL-licensed) would be subject to the GPL. Or that a program written using a Linux machine would inherit the license of the kernel (also the GPL)... This entire line of reasoning is absolutely insane.
If I were you, I'd be more worried about the licensing implications of using git (also GPL-licensed) to manage all your source code. Those are also non-existent too, but at least git directly touches your code, rather than being a 3-level deep dependency.
9dbe451There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there a particular reason you moved to a GPL license? This prevents us from using this (even indirectly). Could you change the license to Apache 2.0 ?
9dbe451There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, I've been gradually moving all my libraries to the GPL since it ensures that source-code changes are shared back, but I'm happy to provide a sub-license if you need it.
What prevents you from using GPL-based projects "even indirectly"? I've run into other people who misunderstand how the GPL works (see: jescalan/accord#180 (comment)), so I wonder if that's the same thing you're talking about.
9dbe451There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've read the attached GPL.pdf file. I don't see any reason to create such a hassle for companies, considering they have to consult with a lawyer if their particular use case of the GPL program is "embeding", "modifying" or simply linking.
If you think about it, using webpack to transform and then embed the GPL application probably causes "infection" for your entire application. Even for the slim chance that it doesn't, why would a company want to risk it?
For regular licensed programs, I would advise to drop all GPL licenses and find an alternative dependency.
I don't see any companies running here to create PRs for your code (which is what you wanted with GPL), but rather looking for alternative dependencies and packages.
If you want people to freely use your code, use a sane license.
9dbe451There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, the idea of "infection" is FUD. Using webpack would create what the text of the GPL calls an "aggregate":
I doubt that a company would even pay to consult with a lawyer on that matter, since it's explained right in the license... And that should be obvious, given the number of companies that build on the GPL-licensed Linux kernel.
I don't see anyone running to make PRs on this library, which is exactly the same number of PRs I got while it was MIT-licensed, so my rate of PRs is unchanged. That's probably because this library is unpopular, rather than having anything to do with the license.
The GPL is the only license that ensures people can freely use my code. Without it, people (including myself) could close-off future development and make the code proprietary... Something I've seen multiple companies attempt to do with derivative works of WordPress (another GPL-licensed package).
Anyway, what is your use-case for this library? If you have some strange situation that requires you to modify the source of fobject, release those modifications in a compiled product, and never release those changes to the public, then I might be able to provide a sub-license.
9dbe451There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Webpack does not only aggregate, but transforms source code (even libraries). We use
gulp-lesswhich depends onaccordand which depends on this package. Right now, instead of trying to risk it if our use case is "infection" free or not (and I think it's very debatable), we'll be better off switching offgulp-lessand saving the headache..Sorry, I know you work hard to maintain and write open-source, I do too. But I want people to freely use my code without any headaches...
9dbe451There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
gulp-lessdoesn't put any of the source-code of fobject into the resulting build, so you're not even creating an aggregate with fobject. Since you're not including the source of fobject in the website you're presumably building, you could even make modifications to fobject without releasing them back to the public.In this situation, fobject is effectively a build tool, and thinking that it has any implication on the license of the resulting website is as absurd as thinking that a program compiled with Make or gcc (both GPL-licensed) would be subject to the GPL. Or that a program written using a Linux machine would inherit the license of the kernel (also the GPL)... This entire line of reasoning is absolutely insane.
If I were you, I'd be more worried about the licensing implications of using git (also GPL-licensed) to manage all your source code. Those are also non-existent too, but at least git directly touches your code, rather than being a 3-level deep dependency.
9dbe451There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Doesn't the MPL license also require changes to be published? Just curious why you chose GPL over the MPL v2 or LGPL