Request Dual License MIT about bs-json HOT 7 CLOSED

What specifically precludes you from using libraries licensed as LGPL?

Dual licensing under MIT would undermine the purpose of using LGPL. And I don't really care about attribution anyway. What I do care about is that any modifications made are contributed back to open source, which LGPL encourages very well.

I might dual license under something like MPL, for example, but I consider them basically equivalent for JavaScript. And I'm hesitant to primarily use MPL as it's less well known, ie. even scarier than LGPL.

from bs-json.

Packaging via something such as webpack would be considered static linking. Shipping separate source code and build information to allow relinking isn't feasible for me. Shipping the code not in a single bundle is not feasible for me.

So the problem is with the LGPL requirement to allow for dynamically linking an alternative library implementation. bs-platform is attempting to get around this by providing a provision that removes the requirements in section 4 of the LGPL. I'm not even sure that I can get that modified license past the company lawyers.

I applaud your efforts to keep people contributing to open source when they modify the code, unfortunately the provisions with regards to static linking mean that the LGPL 'infects' code which can't dynamically link and which don't make any modifications to contribute back :(

from bs-json.

I don't think the concepts of static and dynamic linking make much sense applied to JavaScript. Whether or not it's bundled into a single file or separated doesn't really make a difference since it's still just plain text where a bundled module can easily be replaced using only a text editor. Minification, at least as it is currently done, is a bigger problem however. And the terminology used is such that it leaves room for a lot of interpretation, so I do certainly understand the concern.

MPL-2.0 should avoid this issue though. Could you run that past the lawyers? Otherwise I'm open for other suggestions as well, but MIT won't work I'm afraid.

from bs-json.

I don't think that it makes sense, either, but unfortunately the LGPL references the concepts. If none of the code compiled into bs-json is licensed LGPL (with the possible exception of bs-platform code given their provision allowing for static linking) and you change to or dual-license under MPL-2.0, from my reading, I think that will fly with my lawyers. Of course, IANAL :)

from bs-json.

Would you like me to prepare a PR updating the license information to specify dual licensing under LGPLv3 and MPL-2.0?

from bs-json.

Yes, please do. If possible I'd like Github to still report it as LGPL though.

from bs-json.

Fixed in #58. Released as 5.0.1.

from bs-json.