License incompatibility, GPLv2 nested dependency

[mbrevoort]

This license incompatibility exists for any commercial/private use of browserify:

browserify (MIT)
--> browser-builtins (MIT)
--> buffer-browserify (MIT/X11)
--> base64-js (GPLv2)

We need to remove @beatgammit 's dependency from buffer-browserify unless he's willing to change the license. I'll open an issue in buffer-browserify as well.

[danielchatfield]

I hate GPL

[mbrevoort]

seems like there's only a single line where this is used
https://github.com/toots/buffer-browserify/blob/master/index.js#L131

looking for alternatives now....

[mbrevoort]

As it turns out, the package.json of base64-js points to the wrong Github repo, it points to https://github.com/beatgammit/deflate-js (https://github.com/beatgammit/base64-js/blob/master/package.json#L8) which is GPLv2 licensed.

The correct repo looks like https://github.com/beatgammit/base64-js that doesn't specify a license at all, but most of @beatgammit 's other repos are also GPLv2 licensed as well so I wouldn't be surprised if he would explicitly GPLv2 base64-js as well. Either way we need to remove the ambiguity.

[toots]

It shouldn't be too hard to rewrite base64-js or even compile it with emscripten ^^

[toots]

This one should do: https://code.google.com/p/javascriptbase64/source/browse/trunk/base64.js

[beatgammit]

My bad, it's MIT licensed. I'll make the change now (embarassing error in the package.json).

The deflate-js package is GPL for now, but that's because of external dependencies. My code in that repo is MIT, but the dependencies make it GPL. GPL does suck...

[beatgammit]

Change done. If I don't have a license in another one of my projects, just ask me. Most likely it's MIT or BSD licensed. The only differences are usually things that have GPL dependencies.

[mbrevoort]

@beatgammit (for the 3rd time) thanks!! Closing.