Skip to content
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

License change request #706

Closed
kk-zu opened this issue Nov 10, 2022 · 8 comments
Closed

License change request #706

kk-zu opened this issue Nov 10, 2022 · 8 comments

Comments

@kk-zu
Copy link

kk-zu commented Nov 10, 2022

@douglascrockford

The license was changed to "Public Domain" in PR #688. However, the meaning of "public domain" is a bit ambiguous (e.g. "public domain" is not defined in the law of Japan.)
So users can't judge whether they can use JSON-java or not. I guess that it opposes your intention.

To resolve this problem, could you change the license to 0BSD or MIT-0? Or could you agree to change the license to one of two licenses?

I asked you because I read this message

The original author of the application, Douglas Crockford, selected the license. Please reach out to him if you would like to see any changes.

@javadev
Copy link
Contributor

javadev commented Nov 22, 2022

MIT ➕

@sonots
Copy link

sonots commented Dec 8, 2022

I also prefer MIT-0 license.

@ColinSullivan1
Copy link

+1, MIT or Apache 2.0 would be great.

Great project and thanks for contributing to the open source community. We'd really like to use this project in NATS.io but it doesn't seem like we can due to the current license. More here: https://opensource.org/node/878

CC @scottf

@douglascrockford
Copy link
Contributor

If Public Domain is not liberal enough for you, I recommend that you do not use it.

@stleary
Copy link
Owner

stleary commented Feb 16, 2023

Closing this issue due to a provided authoritative answer.

@scottf
Copy link

scottf commented Feb 16, 2023

@douglascrockford It's not that it's not liberal enough for us, it's the fact that public domain is not a license and is interpreted differently in different countries which can make it incompatible with opensource projects. The lawyers just don't want to deal with it.

@douglascrockford
Copy link
Contributor

Coders arguing about international intellectual property law: ridiculous. The facts are that it is absolutely free and I gave up claim of ownership. You are of course entitled to believe all of the non-facts that you like.

@johnjaylward
Copy link
Contributor

Not to beat a dead horse... but ok I will.

I believe they are just looking for something more "formal" to satiate corporate lawyers. I believe a license like this matches what your intent is @douglascrockford .

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

8 participants