Consider a more permissive license

[bergie]

wysihtml5 looks very promising! I'd love to integrate it as another editor option in Create. However, Create is licensed under MIT and wysihtml5 under the more strict GPL. This would prevent me from distributing the editor, and most implementors from using it.

It would be great if the editor could at least be dual-licensed.

[caniszczyk]

+1, it would be great if you used the APLv2 or a BSD flavored license

[ianlandsman]

+1, basically anything is better than GPL :)

[taylorotwell]

Yeah, this definitely needs to be under a more permissive license. Something like MIT. Basically unusable under GPL.

[ericlbarnes]

👍 Yes please anything but GPL. http://ellislab.com/blog/comments/gpl_or_not_to_gpl

[undo76]

+1
This one is preventing me from using it.

[karlbohlmark]

+1, pretty unusable right now without a license change. Doesn't seem likely that you're planning on adding a commercial option.

If it's going to stay GPL, this should probably be clearly stated in the README to prevent people from wasting time on an unviable option.

[troygoode]

+1

[linze]

+1 This one is preventing me from using it too

[jareda]

+1

[pawel-dubiel]

+1

[jberryman]

Some of the comments above are a bit whiny for my tastes. If the author wants to consider a different license, that's great. Otherwise please respect the author's right to license his work however he chooses.

[ericlbarnes]

@jberryman I think we all do respect his choice. In fact we all like his work so much that we want to use it but can't because of the licensing.

[jberryman]

@ericbarnes I think it's fine to express that, however it's possible that the author feels strongly that you should not be able to use his code in those ways that would violate the GPL, and that he chose his license after careful consideration. In that case it is rude to say, e.g. " this definitely needs to be under a more permissive license" and to suggest the code is "unusable" and is "wasting peoples' time".

But this discussion is OT in an already questionable issue report...

Something that I think would be rather helpful in general and for the author in considering this issue would be for commenters to detail why specifically the GPL is limiting their adoption of the code.

[ianlandsman]

Just guessing but it looks like the author may not be sure what exactly GPL implies because of the code commit comment used when the license was committed. This is a very good article that may clear up some of why GPL is very limiting.

http://ellislab.com/blog/comments/gpl_or_not_to_gpl

[karlbohlmark]

@jberryman Of course none of us can demand anything from the author in terms of license changes. It would however be great to get a confirmation that the choice of license was deliberate so we can all just move along.

As to why specifically GPL is limiting the adoption, a short answer is: you can pretty much only use this software as a part of GPL-licensed software. That is, if you're not distributing your own software under GPL you may not include this library.

People are already making mistakes and wasting their time: https://github.com/jhollingworth/bootstrap-wysihtml5 (Trying to release an apache licensed project which contains wysihtml5, which again is not possible http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html)

[barmstrong]

+1 for something more permissive

[lancefisher]

+1 for MIT or dual licensing. Dual licensing would allow this to be used in GPL projects and other projects.

[piskvorky]

My perspective: give it to me for free, no strings attached, thanks.

Your perspective: LGPL might sound more reasonable for wider adoption, or an MIT-style license. Thanks again.

For people posting links to EllisLab blog: be sure to scroll down & read the comments section there.

[ahdinosaur]

+1 LGPL

[maccman]

+1 MIT

[newzealandpaul]

+1 MIT

[stepmr]

+1 MIT

[tiff]

It's now MIT. Sorry, for the hassle this might have caused!

[newzealandpaul]

Thanks!

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Christopher Blum
reply@reply.github.com
wrote:

It's now MIT. Sorry, for the hassle this might have caused!

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#22 (comment)

[mvasilkov]

License trolling, in my GitHubs. Sigh.

[ianlandsman]

Awesome! thanks. I think you're going to see your work gain a lot more recognition directly due to this change. Keep it up!

[tswicegood]

@tiff Thank you! I wanted to include this immediately in the @armstrong project when I saw it yesterday, but the license kept us from doing that. Going with the MIT means we can include it in our platform. Thanks for all of your hard work getting this out there -- I hope we'll be able to help out through our use in Armstrong.

[taylorotwell]

Yes thank you very much!

[lancefisher]

Yea! Thanks!

[caniszczyk]

Thanks guys!

[bergie]

Great! This might open the door for interesting collaboration between wysihtml5 and Hallo. See bergie/hallo#5