-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 218
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Unclear license #2709
Comments
Hello! Thanks for the query. 🙂 I have to admit that your points are relevant. I will consult this with our legal team, and we will take steps to fix this issue and make the licensing transparent. The first step is clarifying the licensing without moving the ee code out. The second step is making the ee directories removable so you can build a fully FOSS version of the version without the need to make other changes to the code. It's planned for 2025 since that wouldn't be an easy task and would slow our development of new features, which is our priority. However, we don't plan to move the ee stuff to other repository, since that would make our code less manageable and harder to contribute. |
Hello, |
I have an update! We have made the I am also currently working with lawyers on providing right EE licence for the |
Great to see things moving forward on this! |
Hello,
I'm trying to understand the licensing model can you help me out?
ee
module has a different (non FOSS?) license. This is confusing (to say the least), maybe you could consider moving it to a different repo with its own LICENSE file.ee
LICENSE file is... ehm... not a license file? I'd consider to accept the Enterprise Edition of Tolgee but where is it? No license header, no license text so what's the license of the files in theee
directory? Are they APLv2 or does this useless LICENSE file apply to them?ee
files, for which I should agree some terms which I cannot find?Don't get me wrong, I understand the struggle and the frustration to make FOSS financially viable (welcome to the club BTW) but the current state, unless I missed something, is confusing and wrong. The repo says 'open source' in it's README and LICENSE file, you shouldn't have a proprietary license in a random directory
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: