-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47
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
Choice of Open Source License #18
Comments
I like WTFPL license, why is it offensive for you? |
Far more important is the "anarchic" part, which deters me. I cannot associate with anarchic views. Why does one still invest time and brain-power without caring what happens to/with the software ? As far as the offensive part is concerned, I'd like to show my appreciation for "profanity" with a scene from the "Big Lebowski": Cuss words I can deal with it in only one context: no-fuss comedy. Had I paid more attention to the license, I would not have contributed. My contributions are small in comparison; the project will carry on, no matter what happens to the license. One more thing: both AdminLTE and Angular are licensed under MIT. |
the community is divided on this license and a license should not be a reason for division, into the open source world. I think that the admin repo should change the license to MIT and take all community power. |
Thanks to both of you. I am glad this is issue is treated appropriately. |
WTFPL is anarchic and offensive.
It is your right, dear maintainer, to keep it that way, or to switch to a different one.
However, the current license is a deterrent for me.
Since I take Open Source software development seriously, both as a beneficiary as well as a contributor, I certainly cannot identify with nonchalance.
Please consider alternative license models, such as
My favourite ones are: BSD 3-clause, BSD 2-clause, APL, MIT, EPL, MIT or ISC.
I would still stick around with *GPL.
CDDL is out, though.
Choose wisely.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: