mirror of
https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com
synced 2024-12-22 04:40:09 +01:00
92b2fa9728
The last meaningful change to this tag was c4c48d49 (Change nonstatic to library usage, 2013-07-10), but I'm not sure where that discussion happened. In any case, that commit changed some "must" wording to "may" wording, which seems like it should move the label from required to permitted. However, a library-usage permission would also apply to many other licenses (e.g. folks are free to link MIT-licensed work from a proprietary program), and adding library-usage to almost all the licenses seems like the wrong way to make this distinction [1]. The limitations that the LGPL and OSL place on disclose-source scoping are already covered in the disclose-source description, so the library-usage label doesn't seem to be adding anything meaningful. The OSL gets at this distinction by tightly scoping derivative works [2], and the LGPL talks about combined works as a special subset of derivative works [3,4]. The MPL makes a similar distinction between "Covered Software" and "Larger Work" [5], and the EPL makes a similar distinction between "derivative works" and "the Program" [6]. Whether the location of those distinctions, or the requirements placed on combined works can be neatly summarized in a boolean label remains to be seen, but we're pretty sure that library-usage is not that label [7]. Subsequent commits may replace the caveat in the disclose-source description with wording in the license description themselves or by adding a new label that summarizes the issue. Until then, the disclose-source description more clearly covers the information that library-usage was intended to convey, so this commit removes the less-clear label to avoid redundancy. [1]: https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/pull/343#issuecomment-179532710 [2]: http://rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-explained.htm#_Toc187293087 [3]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html [4]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html [5]: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/ [6]: http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html [7]: https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/pull/343#issuecomment-179557468