New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Is the GPL3 license too restrictive #874
Comments
Possibly ... I don't have strong opinion on the license. However, as far as I understand, changing the license for some packages would require approval of all authors, as well as making sure that only compatible licenses are used for the dependency. This is no small task ... Just listing dependencies and authors is a pain apparently. |
To change the license of Perhaps the sane thing to do is to close this issue and wait for someone to complain (although we'll never know if someone is considering |
Another problem with MIT for the core and keep GPL for the outer layers (entities, CLI, bridges ..) is that code routinely move from one to another (ex: prototyping in entities then generalizing in the core). Things get blurry fast, even if I'm the author of the vast majority of the core. |
Agreed - if you look at the file headers for each source file in the Linux repository, you'll see that there are one to many copyright holders listed - that seems like too much of an administrative burden (e.g. https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/fs/binfmt_flat.c.) |
We could do something similar as what Protocol Labs did: ipfs/kubo#6302
|
Since the ability to use
As you noted above, this represents quite a bit of work and since there are currently no CLAs in place, what's allowed is somewhat undefined (beyond continuing the project without changes.) How do we get feedback on this? And if nobody cares about the derivative works clauses, the original point is moot! |
Since the entities and caching are being generalized to allow others to use
git-bug
as a library for storing data ingit
, is the GPL3 license too restrictive? Will needing to release derivative products under the same GPL3 license dissuade people from adoptinggit-bug
as a library? Can we build a bigger eco-system with a less restrictive license?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: