Inconsistency licence statements between README and LICENSE
See original GitHub issueThe README states
License
Authlib offers two licenses:
BSD for open source projects
Commercial license for closed source projects
however, the LICENSE is a BSD license, which is compliant with closed source (redistribution). As it stands, I read this as
If I develop a close source project, I must buy a commercial license; if it is an open source, I can use BSD.
If this is the case, then this project is not BSD licensed, as its actual license is
If usage in open source, you can use it under the terms of BSD; else, you must buy a commercial license
I propose that we clarify what exactly do we mean with Commercial license for closed source projects
.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 3 years ago
- Comments:11 (1 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
FreeOrion license statement inconsistencies - FreeOrion
According to the wiki, these are only licensed under GNU GPL 2.0, according to the README.md and COPYING files content scripts are also...
Read more >Inconsistent reference to license for docs · Issue #70 - GitHub
Hello,. The README.md and LICENSE.docs files are inconsistent about which license applies to the spdystream documentation.
Read more >Restricting the open source by adding a statement in README
My open source project is released under Apache2 License. I want people to use the library under Apache2 however I don't want people...
Read more >A Method to Detect License Inconsistencies in Large-Scale ...
A license inconsistency is the presence of two or more source files that evolved from the same original file containing different licenses. In ......
Read more >Debugging license problems - Tidelift
Tidelift's license scanning compares the output of your package manager's license metadata and your source repository's license metadata.
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
All i wanted to point out is :
Some orgs , especially big-tech are very serious on licenses and this would cause this great lib to get not adopted. I think you can remove and still offer commercial license by placing a link , to the webpage ? That way it will be a lot more easier for companies to adopt. Now it sound like the are are some catches inside,