Replace license with Apache 2.0

[adidahiya]

Fixes #1613.

[blueprint-bot]

Update more instances of BSD -> Apache

Preview: documentation | landing | table
Coverage: core | datetime

[giladgray]

not crazy about doubling the length of the copyright header.

how did you do this? can you share the commands you used? I'm sure they'll be useful in the future.

[adidahiya]

find . -name "*.ts*" -print0 | xargs -0 \
sed -i -e '/Licensed under the BSD/,/PATENTS/c\
\ *\
\ * Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");\
\ * you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.\
\ * You may obtain a copy of the License at\
\ *\
\ *     http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0\
\ *\
\ * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software\
\ * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,\
\ * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.\
\ * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and\
\ * limitations under the License.'

[jamesfry]

http://blueprintjs.com/ still states BSD in the footer

[adidahiya]

@jamesfry we haven't made a release with this license change yet. The docs site gets updated when we make a release.

[jamesfry]

Apologies; completely overlooked that - thanks for the clarification!

[willnorris]

Thanks for migrating away from the Facebook style patent language... that's a welcome change, and makes Blueprint easier to adopt for many people!

However, in moving to the Apache 2.0 license, you actually used a modified version that includes an extra section. Would your legal folks be open to reconsidering this, as it makes so much more work for anyone that wants to use this since it is now a custom license that needs additional legal review rather than a standard Apache 2.0 license which most companies are very comfortable with. The point of using standard licenses is that they are well reviewed and understood.

[edited for language and tone]

[adidahiya]

// disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer

While I agree that it would be great for Blueprint to use the standard Apache 2.0 license instead of a modified one, I think our modification is reasonably justified. Here is the text of the additional clause:

   10. The name, trade names, trademarks, service marks, or product 
       names of Palantir Technologies Inc. (“Palantir”) or any of its 
       Contributors may not be used to endorse or promote products derived 
       from this Work (including the user interface elements embodied 
       therein) without specific prior written permission.  Nothing in this 
       License constitutes as permission to (i) use the Work (including 
       the user interface elements embodied therein) in a way that is 
       likely or intended to cause confusion about the owner or source of 
       products derived from this Work (including the user interface 
       elements therein), or (ii) assert or imply (other than any 
       attribution notice) that products derived from this Work 
       (including the user interface elements embodied therein) are 
       connected or affiliated with Palantir, its products, or its 
       Contributors or sourced from or sponsored or endorsed by Palantir
       or its Contributors.

Palantir is giving away a UI toolkit for free that lets you build UIs that look at lot like Palantir's products. IMO it feels pretty sane to cover our bases here and add protections against anyone who might try to pass off a Blueprint-based UI as Palantir software. Unless there's significant demand from other Blueprint users, I'm not inclined to ask our legal team to re-review, sorry.

[willnorris]

Trademarks are already specifically excluded in Section 6 of the license:

   6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade
      names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor,
      except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the
      origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file.

Additionally, stating that users of the package don't have the right to imply endorsement by Palantir is unnecessary since there is nothing in the license that would imply that they'd have that right in the first place.

I'm not suggesting that the language of the added section is at all harmful (though it is redundant). I'm saying that anytime you take a standard license and change it in any way, you are now dealing with a custom license. One that isn't approved by the OSI, and now has to be individually reviewed and vetted by the legal teams of all of the companies that may want to use the package (in my case, including Google).

[llorca]

IANAL either, so I asked our legal team for guidance. We'll get back to you in a week or two.

[pombredanne]

Please see ticket #2602
Your modifications to the Apache 2.0 license make it something new and different which is no longer an Apache 2.0 license: IMHO this is possibly misleading and also creating licensing compliance automation for downstream users. Feel free to ping me privately if you want me to discuss this further with your legal team