re-license to BLUEPRINT LICENSE based on Apache 2.0 License #2638
Conversation
Clarification that Blueprint has been made available under a modified version of the Apache-2.0. The only modification is an additional section (paragraph 10) in which we ask that you do not pass off any derivative products as Palantir’s products, given that Blueprint is a design toolkit.
update readmePreview: documentation | landing | table |
packages/karma-build-scripts/LICENSE
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,192 @@ | |||
| MODIFIED VERSION OF APACHE LICENSE, VERSION 2.0 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
IMHO you should not make any confusing references to the Apache license in name anywhere in your license text. Call this whatever you want but not a modified Apache 2.0 which brings confusion
packages/karma-build-scripts/LICENSE
Outdated
|
|
||
| Note: Paragraph 10 is the only modification | ||
|
|
||
| Original version of Apache License, Version 2.0, is available |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This reference is also a source of confusion. Remove this IMHO, remove any references to Apache in the license text. And give this license a name that is clearly different like the PALANTIR PUBLIC LICENSE 1.0
If you want to explain somewhere that this is derived from the Apache license, do it in some readme or else. Not in the license text
|
@giladgray Thanks! I think the modified license text is still confusing and should be cleaned from ANY references to Apache, including URLs and comments that this is based on Apache and that you should give your new license a conspicuous and different name. Now beside these suggested changes, I still think you are doing yourself a terrible disservice by using using a non-standard "vanity" open source license. There is nothing I can see as new and material in your added paragraph 10: everything about trademark is covered in section 6 of the standard Apache 2.0 license. This should raise a red a big flag to any potential and existing user as in any case using a vanity license is like carrying a big sign saying "DO NOT USE THIS CODE". So that's your choice but this mistake will likely hinder the adoption of your code and projects. And make it harder for users to comply as they will have to review and handle your special terms as an exception. |
|
@pombredanne I appreciate your feedback here. Happy to further clarify that this is not the Apache License. We definitely avoid deviating from standard licenses, as can be seen in our other projects on GitHub. But for this particular project, we need to keep this custom license. |
BLUEPRINT LICENSEPreview: documentation | landing | table |
packages/docs-app/package.json
Outdated
| @@ -57,5 +57,5 @@ | |||
| "docs" | |||
| ], | |||
| "author": "Palantir Technologies", | |||
| "license": "Apache-2.0" | |||
| "license": "UNLICENSED" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Even if these packages are not published to npm, we still need to provide a license for when people check out the code from github. So, just add the LICENSE file to these packages and change to "SEE LICENSE FILE"
UNLICENSED => SEE LICENSE IN REPO ROOTPreview: documentation | landing | table |
missed onePreview: documentation | landing | table |
giladgray
changed the title
Fixes #2602
LICENSEfiles now declare the license asBLUEPRINT LICENSE based on Apache 2.0 License"SEE LICENSE"cc @pombredanne, would love to hear what you think of this.