EVERYONE: License of vis.js #285

Closed
josdejong opened this Issue Sep 2, 2014 · 25 comments

Projects

None yet
@josdejong
Member

Currently vis.js is licensed under the Apache 2.0 License. This license is incompatible with for example the GPL v2 licenses (though it is compatible with v3).

I'm not sure how big this issue really is. But in order to better serve our users, we are considering whether it is useful to change the license. A few things are important for us:

  1. as much as possible freedom for the user
  2. protection for the user (like against patent threats or changing the license conditions later on)
  3. keep attribution (honor the people and our company investing so much in this library)

While MIT is a nice fit for (1), Apache 2.0 better serves (2) and (3). We could choose one of the two, or even choose a dual license allowing both.

Do you have any opinion on the licencing of vis.js?

@dponch
dponch commented Sep 3, 2014

Hi,

I would like to help, but I don't know too much about licencing.
I don't understand why Apache 2.0 is not compatible with GPL v2, I mean it's not compatible if VisJs uses something licensed under GPL. Does it apply if a GPL program uses VisJs?

I also don't the different between LGPL and Apache 2.0 License...

Regards,
Guillermo

@josdejong
Member

This is an issue when you are building an application or library which is licensed as LGPL v2, and you want to use libraries such as vis.js in it, which is licensed as Apache 2.0.

@dweese
dweese commented Sep 8, 2014

Presumably you've seen this:
http://choosealicense.com/

Warmest regards,
Dan

@AlexDM0
Member
AlexDM0 commented Sep 12, 2014

I'd think a MIT / APACHE 2.0 dual license would be a good solution. We'd have to ask the other committers though, @kannonboy @dturkenk @vukk @vierja @Gregoor @Remper What do you guys think? We'd need your permission I believe to change the license.

Regards

@AlexDM0
Member
AlexDM0 commented Sep 12, 2014

Also @sfairgrieve, @jeroencoumans, @theGrue, @fi0dor, @Gillingham @AlexVangelov, I'm not sure if parts of your commits still survived the multitude of refactorings we've had but if so, your contributions give you a voice in the changing of the licenses. Would you care to weigh in? If anyone of you disagrees with the final decision, we cannot legally change the license or we'd have to remove your code from the project.

Cheers!

@jeroencoumans
Contributor

No problem!

@Gregoor
Contributor
Gregoor commented Sep 12, 2014

I didn't do much, so whatever you guys think is best!
I'm using vis atm in a private tobe-commercial education software, so I'm glad if the license will keep it compatible to that (though I do think I'll have to stop using it at some point and make the switch to SVG).

@AlexVangelov
Contributor

No problem!

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Gregoor notifications@github.com wrote:

I didn't do much, so whatever you guys think is best!
I'm using vis atm in a private tobe-commercial education software, so I'm
glad if the license will keep it compatible to that (though I do think I'll
have to stop using it at some point and make the switch to SVG).


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#285 (comment).

@dturkenk
Contributor

I haven't done much either - so I'm fine with whichever direction you choose.

MIT/Apache dual license seems to make sense though.

@fi0dor
fi0dor commented Sep 12, 2014

Hey,

dual licencing should be good choice.

@vierja
Contributor
vierja commented Sep 12, 2014

No problem!

@vukk
Contributor
vukk commented Sep 12, 2014

MIT/Apache2.0 sounds great, I have no problem with it.

@kannonboy
Contributor

+1 for MIT / Apache2

@Gillingham
Contributor

I'm OK with this change.

@sfairgrieve

I'm cool with the license change.

Scott

@Remper
Contributor
Remper commented Sep 12, 2014

No problem

@AlexDM0
Member
AlexDM0 commented Oct 14, 2014

Hi All,

We've decided to go with a dual license of Apache and MIT starting from the next release (somewhere before the end of the month).

Thanks for all the input!

Regards,

Alex

@AlexDM0 AlexDM0 closed this Oct 14, 2014
@josdejong
Member

Ok guys, we have finally updated the NOTICE and LICENCE files to a dual license solution. Vis.js is now officially dual licensed as of version 3.6.2.

If anyone has complaints against this or sees an issue in the new dual licensing solution please let us know.

@AlexVangelov AlexVangelov pushed a commit to AlexVangelov/vis that referenced this issue Oct 30, 2014
@josdejong josdejong Dual licensed vis.js (see #285) 124395d
@pmario
pmario commented Nov 6, 2014

Hi, MIT is fine, because you use several other libs, that are MIT. IMO, a BSD type license would have been an option too, because it contains attribution and is very open.

... but I think there is a problem:

Your NOTICE file, lists the containing libraries. There is the mousetrap library: http://craig.is/killing/mice which is Apache 2 only.

Correct me, if I'm wrong, but Apache 2 doesn't allow you to convert it to MIT. So if you if vis.min.js contains mousetrap, it can not be distributed as MIT, since Apache 2 doesn't allow this. .... But having a look at your lib directory, I can't find mousetrap.js. So do you still use it? If not, we are fine and you can ignore my comment :)

@AlexDM0
Member
AlexDM0 commented Nov 6, 2014

Hi Mario,

You're right. This is a big oversight on our part and I thank you for letting us know. I will remove mousetrap from vis today to solve this conflict.

Regards,

Alex

@pmario
pmario commented Nov 6, 2014

IMO it would be also possible to ask the mousetrap author, if he'd add MIT license or change from Apache2 to MIT.

@AlexDM0
Member
AlexDM0 commented Nov 6, 2014

I'm not sure that would work:
ccampbell/mousetrap#169

@AlexDM0
Member
AlexDM0 commented Nov 6, 2014

I have removed mousetrap from vis and since I could not find any library I liked with the MIT license, I decided to make one and use it in vis. Keycharm will handle all keyboard shortcuts from now on.

https://github.com/AlexDM0/keycharm

Thanks again for notifying us of the license conflict.

Regards,

Alex

@pmario
pmario commented Nov 6, 2014

Hi Alex,

Thanks again for notifying us of the license conflict.

You are welcome! I'm glad I could help :)

Actually a plugin author for the TiddlyWiki project uses the vis.js library, to create a really great plugin, which is alpha atm. I think it will be famous in our community :) Since TiddlyWiki uses BSD, we try to promote / use libraries that are as compatible as possible.

So thanks for your great work!

have fun!
mario

@mdxs mdxs added a commit to mdxs/vis that referenced this issue Dec 3, 2014
@mdxs mdxs Reflect dual licensed vis.js in README
Further to #285, it seems the `README.md` wasn't changed in AlexVangelov@124395d to reflect the dual license status.
99e0d1f
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment