lamson
lamson copied to clipboard
zedshaw
License makes it impossible to use
The clause in the license that allows the rights holder to revoke the license, namely
'5. The copyright holder reserves the right to revoke this license on anyone who uses this copyrighted work at any time for any reason. makes it impossible to use lamson in any serious project.'
I don't have any problem with the other clauses, but if this is not changed, I'd have to use the version from 2 years ago without the clause.
The clause was introduced in 1d49db2 I'm worry, @zedshaw could you elaborate why do you chose to add that clause? There are also more questions on the commit
I know. My current approach is to fork the project with the code base before the commit. But I would prefer to collaborate on the original project.
This is a important decision, forking is not always nice.
@zedshaw Will be great if you share your opinion on why you add that clause, probably there is an alternative that will keep the project Open and your concerns fulfilled.
I would recommend using salmon. This project is quite dead. And Zed isn't gonna remove that part: http://zedshaw.com/essays/why_i_gpl.html
A well ... I understand Zed's ire and I would not have a problem even with AGPL. But I cannot use a product that can be pulled away under my feet any time. Happily switching to salmon to keep Zed's great work alive.
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Tino de Bruijn [email protected] wrote:
I would recommend using salmon. This project is quite dead. And Zed isn't gonna remove that part: http://zedshaw.com/essays/why_i_gpl.html
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/zedshaw/lamson/issues/34#issuecomment-47430638.
+1 for pointing out salmon. Extra points if anybody sets up a new librelist...
@tino this project is not GPL licensed, this is a custom BSD-ish license. I highly doubt this passes as free software. // cc @zedshaw
As far as I can see, salmon by @moggers87 is alive and well. Please support that project, which has a reasonable license and is in need for help.
I'd also be interested. As I see it it is a base to re-license the software however he sees it fit. https://github.com/zedshaw/lamson/blob/master/LICENSE http://zedshaw.com/archive/why-i-algpl/
I am very aware that AGPL3 is (missing the LAGPL3) is a good choice if you want to enforce monetization of your software through dual licensing (like ExtJS did!/does?). Aside the plagiarism term I fully agree with @zedshaw - One has to make sure she/he gets a cut in FOSS especially when most stuff is PaaS today.
However I am not sure if the license above is still in line with the A/L/GPL3 post by Zed and/or how it is handled.
At least its not make-your-profit-and-kick-my-butt-MIT/BSD shudder
