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
License Confusion #475
Comments
I know developers don't always control the purse strings, but IMHO if your company is making money using free software, you should just pony up for a commercial license to support the authors of that software. Getting cheap about this stuff is how you wind up with two part-time devs maintaining core infrastructure out of the goodness of their hearts. |
I think you're absolutely spot on here. And that's a conversation that needs to happen with managers, not typically the devs -- because as you say, we don't hold the purse strings -- and I certainly don't here. But as I understand the license terms of this project, purchasing of commercial support is not required for commercial use. And that's what I want clarified. Otherwise this project is not open source under the various definitions of open source software. |
As said on readme:
No confusion from readme. |
Also It should be pretty clear I'm using the django_client from this github issue in 2020.
Authlib Licenses https://docs.authlib.org/en/latest/community/licenses.html So license lawyers read that and it's pretty clear that if true, then your software really isn't OSS. I recommend you using the same language from the README on the website. |
Then , if i start a startup project using authlib , just for Social Login do i have to pay? I won't even know if i would make money or not. |
@v3ss0n You don't have to. Just choose the BSD license. |
Oh , then thats great , we have confusion in opensource community with permissive licensing , should we use yours or not. |
I think this sums up the situation perfectly. litestar-org/litestar#878 (comment) Website says one thing. Pypi says another. This comment thread says a third. |
At work, there's confusion around the license. It looks like it's open source BSD license, but the website says the it's BSD only for open source projects. I believed that's been fixed in the repo, but not the website.
I believe two things will solve this.
It's a great library. I'd hate to not use it because of this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: