The 2023 report of the licenses in use by the biggest package managers highlights the need to educate developers on…
  • Daniel Quinn@lemmy.caEnglish
    191·
    1 year ago

    This is really disappointing. I had hoped for a lot more representation for the AGPL and GPL.

    • Kelly@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      Zealot!

      In my heart I like the middle ground the MPL offers. Vitality at the file level feels like a compromise between letting people both have an obligation to the upstream and still maintain ownership of their additions.

      But if course by brain recognises that there is an insignificant population of projects using it and the community gravitates to the extremes

  • merthyr1831@lemmy.world
    3·
    11 months ago

    I fundamentally distrust the language package repos with a high share of unlicensed libraries in their repositories. It’s a basic legal step for protecting the software supply chain and supports the open source community.

    Also, it feels like a sign of immaturity from a package repo to have many unlicensed packages since most serious maintainers see a license as an important step in declaring your software “ready” for distribution. You just can’t assume a package will be maintained if the contributors aren’t going to do these basic steps.

    Dart’s package manager actively penalises packages without a license file (at least when browsing on the website directory). Many languages, including those better at enforcing license declarations, would benefit from a similar feature.