Hot answers tagged

8

Yes, both the MIT and GPL licenses are open source licenses (as defined by the Open Source Definition), so you can use them for any purpose, including commercially. If jszip and thus excel4node are using a GPL component, then you would have to comply with the terms of the GPL which basically means making your source code available if you are distributing ...


8

The conduct page of the npm docs says: Packages must not contain illegal or infringing content. You should only publish packages or other materials to the Service if you have the right to do so. This includes complying with all software license agreements or other intellectual property restrictions. For example, redistributing an MIT-licensed module with ...


6

If your PRs aren't being accepted, the best course of action is to published a scoped version of the package. You can do this even before you think that your PR is being ignored. If you make substantial changes, and after a long while your PRs are still being ignored, then you could consider publishing it with a different name.


5

Open Source license obligations are usually triggered on distribution of the software. That is, if you are only distributing your MIT-licensed NPM package via GitHub but none of its (transitive) dependencies, then it's not you who's creating a potentially conflicting license mix (due to maybe contradicting license obligations). So you're fine as your NPM ...


4

The BSD, MIT and Apache license are all permissive licenses. They have little to no restrictions on how code licensed under then can be used and they have no restrictions on how other projects can be licensed.


4

You must keep the whole license. Quoting from Section 4, "Conveying Verbatim Copies" of the GPL: You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you [...] give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.


4

You added this important comment: it's frontend project. So packages are bundled and minimized then redistributed to end user. So the answer to: Should I credit indirect depended package in my open source credit notice too? ... is a clear YES. Since you are redistributing your code with directs deps, and with deps of deps, and with deps of deps of deps ...


3

Very murky... If the application's relevant parts run on the user's machine, you aren't distributing anything. If it runs on your server, you arent't distributing anything. In neither case would GPL kick in, as I understand it. But by FSF's interpretation (not court validated, as far as I know), writing software that can only be used with something GPLed ...


3

The theory is that if you redistribute all the deps (and least for all embedded deps) then you would be responsible to comply with their license (including attribution, etc). And this is for all the direct deps and deps of deps, all the way down. Now for the deps you do not distribute but would be installed by a user of yours at build time, you do not need ...


2

You are responsible for complying with all the licenses for the software that you distribute. You're not only giving users a copy of your immediate dependencies, but are giving them a bundle with your entire dependency graph. Software that you only use during the build process doesn't matter though. This doesn't have to be a big nuisance. E.g. a separate ...


2

Yes. If you are uploading to NPM you also do not need to include the license of downstream BSD or Apache licensed code assuming you are not distributing the dependencies. It would be a good idea to mention in your README file's licensing section if you used Apache code because of GPL2 compatibility issues, or if you used BSD+Patents code.


2

Yes, there is a difference. If you mention a dependency in package.json (or a similar file that gets used by a mackage manager), you only need to have the right to download & use the dependency, not the right to redistribute it. That latter right is usually not granted for proprietary software. you can automatically get the latest released version of ...


2

You can use license-webpack-plugin to add license information to the webpacked output, which should satisfy the license terms. Alternatively, npm-license-crawler does a pretty good job at consolidating all the licenses you dependencies use, including links to the original licenses, and you could just offer this output, either in CSV or JSON form as a ...


2

Firstly, IANAL/IANYL. That said, the ISC licence allows that: Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. which is very much like other non-copyleft free licences. We have a number of ...


1

If you are running your web app (as a service) on your own server (or a server under your control) regardless if public or in-house, then you are not actually distributing/publishing anything, you are just offering the service. Under the MIT license if you are not distributing the code then you have no obligations. (under AGPL license it would be very ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible