Re:Project includes a dependancy that has a license that for...
by laurent92 on Monday August 23, 2021 @02:10AM
(#28272756)
There was a funny Microsoft license for Xlsx.js (a lib that read Excel files in browser): It was allowed to distribute freely… as long as it runs on Windows:
> (F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B) extend only to the software or derivative works that (1) are run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product, and (2) are not Excluded Products.
So you could not deliver it on Safari, but also not on Chrome if it ran on Mac.
Aaaand that is why the JSXLSX implementation was developed, exactly the same as xlsx.js but without the restriction.
For example, using an LGPL based JavaScript library just leaves me confused every time. I read the LGPL 3.0, read some stack overflow answers, and read the GNU website. Yet I am left without being 100% certain that I can minify the LGPL JavaScript into a single file with my own source code (because JavaScript is not object code, and because sending JavaScript to the browser is distribution).
With BSD/MIT licences everything is clear and less ambiguous, and if I get something wrong then it is usually something easy to fix.
If I were a general counsel, I wouldn’t trust all my developers to follow the GPL licenses properly nor would I trust developers to correctly avoid simple mistakes. A default ban limits liability, reduces risks of negative publicity, and anyone that needs an exception has to justify it.
Idealistically, I love the GPL, and I truely believe in the goal of share and share alike.
Practically I understand why following the *GPL licences is difficult and that it involves multiple risks for a business, and so many commercial businesses sensibly prefer to avoid the costs.