What is the license? about flk HOT 6 CLOSED

@klardotsh it seems safest to license flk under the same license as mal. Would that work for your purposes?

from flk.

I don't feel it's my place to weigh in too heavily on your choice of license - if you think MPL-2.0 with the no-GPL-compat clause is safest, then go for it.

My only remaining question at that point is what the best way to handle packaging something written against flk is - since MPL is file-level, would that require applications written against flk to be MPL-2.0 as well if they use the bundler? (obviously this can be worked around by shipping flk and the application in separate files, so it's not the end of the world either way)

Thanks for the quick reply!

from flk.

@klardotsh that's a very good point. Something like BSD or MIT would seem to be much safer from that point of view. However, I don't even know if I can re-license flk since it includes portions of mal. I guess I am going to have to spend time researching the MPL. 🤔

from flk.

would that require applications written against flk to be MPL-2.0 as well if they use the bundler?

Seems like MPL-2.0 explicitly allows re-licensing:

MPL software can thus be converted into a copyleft license such as the GPL or to a proprietary license (example: KaiOS).
-- Wikipedia

from flk.

I dug a bit further into this. It looks like mal upstream ships the full text of MPL-2.0 but does not indicate that they're triggering Exhibit B (Incompatibility With Secondary Licenses, which then triggers Section 3.3's restrictions on distribution in a larger work), so it sounds like MPL-2.0 without Exhibit B here would make the "concatenated bundles via flk" distribution fine (disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer).

If @kanaka can confirm the Exhibit B thing that'd be awesome, but otherwise I think this is a good path to making this usable! Thanks for taking the time @chr15m!

from flk.

@klardotsh thanks for reasearching this. I have added MPL-2.0 license to the source.

from flk.