Allow "other" Licenses or at least add more! about haxelib HOT 7 CLOSED

I don't think this is a good idea, because of all the trouble this involves.

A key question is what constitutes a free licence.

There are open source licences with clauses like these:

The software shall be used for good and not for evil

Arguably, this is not free software. And I also wouldn't want people to be sued, because somebody thinks the project said software is used in, is evil. When it comes to morality, I am a very opinionated person, but at the same time I think it's wrong to use software as an instrument to force personal convictions onto others.

I don't wish to start a discussion on open source and free software here, but only to point out that there is much room for it, unless you bluntly restrict it to a couple of established licences.

Also, it's hard to keep track of the ridiculous amount of open source licences out there. I think the vast majority of all developers consider reading licences any time they use a project or memorizing the list you've linked quite a waste of time.

Google Code has a similar policy, that it enforces to stop the proliferation of OS licences.

There's a couple of things I would point out:

1. Of the currently supported licences (GPL,LGPL,BSD,Public,MIT), hardly all are viral.
2. If there is a specific licence that you want to add, please say so and give reasons why you want this to happen. I see no reason why it wouldn't be added then.

from haxelib.

No, I don't have a special one in mind, I am happy with xGPL for my just started project, BUT there I have another problem regarding licenses.

Mainly the codebase will contain an executable (used for codegeneration and other tasks) which I would like to license GPL and a bunch of classes which I want to use LGPL for.

But both parts will be tied together, so I don't want to have two projects that require each other.

from haxelib.

How about a "custom" license tag?
. There are a couple of "important" licenses missing (although hardly ever used on Haxe projects): Mozilla and Apache, for instance... While I don't think they should be listed, it still should be possible to use them, for instance for compatibility with correlated non Haxe projects.
. How about non open-source projects that want to distribuite wrappers, connectors and general ndlls on haxelib? While I'm 100% towards open-source development, I can see such use and I think it's something that should be allowed, mainly to allow proprietary software distributors to officially suport Haxe.

from haxelib.

I think the current choice of license cover enough dev needs, giving more choice will simply make it very hard to integrate everything together. If you want wrappers over some library, simply use public domain for the wrapper. the library license will still apply.

from haxelib.

Apache is one I think we should add.

I think we should think about handling it a bit like google code: They allow for a choice between a few licences (pretty similar to the ones we already offer), with an option to use a custom licence (which must be one of the OSI-approved licenses).

I think we should allow a way to specify a COPYING or LICENSE file, as a license in the configuration file. If we want, we could include a disclaimer on haxelib, warning that the library may be using a non-standard license.

from haxelib.

In my case I think Affero GPL is needed as its restriction is not covered by any of the option available. And since Haxe is a good language for server side technologies this license should be allowed.

I cannot use 'Public' as a placeholder as it would give confusion.
Would it not be wise to use "other" instead of "public" as suggested by nobbz ?

In my opinion every license should be allowed as we are not lawyers.

from haxelib.

BSD and MIT are quite confusing term since both of these licenses have subtle variation.

Is there an official link on the haxe website telling which specific version these term refer to when use in the haxelib.json file ?

from haxelib.