Skip to content
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

add basic wording for licensing and open the debate up to PRs. #173

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 21, 2019

Conversation

ghinks
Copy link
Contributor

@ghinks ghinks commented Mar 9, 2019

Issue 160 licensing

In order to get the ball rolling with some actual prose. This may serve as a starting point. I'm not making any recommendations either for or against individual licenses. Rather I'm saying that we
don't want

  • restrictive
  • patent

and do want

  • the owner to have a license
  • choose one appropriately

I think it is not likely we actually would come across a project we want to support that has no license.

@ljharb
Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Mar 9, 2019

Could we determine the most used licenses on npm (by querying the license field in package.jsons in all packages), and report those statistics here? That would serve as a recommendation without making anyone worried that we were giving legal advice.

@ghinks
Copy link
Contributor Author

ghinks commented Mar 9, 2019

I think that is an excellent idea. Let me see what data the NPM folks have on that. I have an owed favor.

Copy link
Member

@Eomm Eomm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would add also the note of the "license" field in package.json. Wdyt? 😁

@ljharb
Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Mar 9, 2019

@ghinks if they can provide it readily, awesome - otherwise we can use @ChALkeR’s tool to just look at al the public packages.

@Eomm excellent idea; it should be present and valid SPDX.

@dominykas
Copy link
Member

Do we recommend/discourage using a LICENSE file?

@ljharb
Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Mar 10, 2019

Recommend, alongside the SPDX field. Both are required.

@ghinks
Copy link
Contributor Author

ghinks commented Mar 16, 2019

Just an update. I have reached out to npm and got a response. I am continuing the conversation.

@ghinks
Copy link
Contributor Author

ghinks commented Mar 20, 2019

( in order of popularity )

  • MIT
  • Apache
  • BSD
  • ISC
  • SEE LICENSE
  • MPL
  • [object Object]
  • GPL
  • CC0-1.0
  • LGPL
  • Unlicense
  • pemrouz.mit-license.org
  • Artistic-2.0
  • WTFPL
  • AGPL
  1. The license is literally "SEE LICENSE", i.e. it refers to a license.txt
  2. [object Object] is again literally the license field when people put JS in it
  3. "Unlicense" is "The Unlicense", not un-licensed code
  4. The WTFPL really is that popular

@ljharb
Copy link
Member

ljharb commented Mar 20, 2019

to clarify; [object Object] is when they use the antiquated object form of the field, which still, however, can be normalized to a license - unfortunately they didn't seem to apply that normalization.

Copy link
Member

@mcollina mcollina left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@ghinks ghinks merged commit 3385eb1 into nodejs:master Mar 21, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants