-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 112
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
Suggestion to add an alternate OSI-recognized license scheme #176
Comments
Sure, a PR would be welcome. |
@domenic any chance this can get merged? I am having the same issue as @ovaillancourt . |
@domenic From a different company but same situation and this would help us a lot. Would you be able to take a look at the PR please? If you prefer a different license, I can submit a new PR. |
@domenic I'm at a different company as well and I'm in the same situation. Would it be possible to use an FSF-approved, similarly lax license, like X11? |
Same for me. Any news @domenic ? |
|
i suppose without getting every contributor to agree to a license change, our option is limited to dual licensing? WTFPL & MIT i don't imagine any of us have anything against that if someone wants to open a PR @keithamus @koddsson thoughts? licensing is a bit of a grey area for me |
https://github.com/chaijs/chai-as-promised/pull/258/files looks like it would nicely suit the needs!
My understanding is that the WTFPL truly intends to let anyone do anything with the work which should include re-licensing. |
WTFPL doesn't allow relicensing unless you rename the project (or of course the copyright holder changes the license). Having said that if we can get the okay from @domenic to change it to MIT (or dual license) then I think we can go ahead with MIT which I believe the rest of the chai projects are under. |
According to the FAQ at http://www.wtfpl.net/faq/: "The WTFPL lets you relicense the work under any other license." But I think you may be right that this may conflict with copyright laws. My understanding is that the license text
is about the license itself, not the work under license. So if you want to change the 0th clause to remove the "just", you have to call it WTFPL2 or something like that. |
I think I gave the OK already in #176 (comment). |
Hi!
Our company is currently performing a legal audit of our engineering / technology department and chai-as-promised was flagged as problematic open source dependency due to the WTFPL license.
I was wondering if you might consider adding an alternate license scheme that has been recognized by the OSI board, similar to what was done with https://github.com/domenic/path-is-inside.
I'd gladly submit a PR to spare you the trouble if you're open to the change.
Thanks for your time and keep up the great work!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: