License has viral clauses in it
tony opened this issue · comments
https://github.com/neithere/django-autoslug/blob/master/COPYING.LESSER
I should have looked closer, I didn't realize this was an LGPL package. This can really hurt projects if someone alleges the delicate and ambiguous clauses of the LGPL a triggered a derivative work.
As a solo-founder, I can't afford to defend a legal accusation of creating a derivative, nor the time to explain why pages of ambiguous legal terminology can really cause a nightmare down the road. It's strongly advised not to cargocult legal documents without vetting them first.
Unless you have an explicit need to have people's projects using this project to be cannibalized to being a derivative of this project, it's advisable to pick a license like MIT/BSD/ISC that doesn't include the machinery to make such a thing a possibility.
I am removing all traces of this project from my code. And have to rewrite refs on https://github.com/develtech/django-slugify-processor as well.
Sorry if I sounded upset, but I have to waste a lot of time now reworking django-extension's autoslugfield on my sites. This is one of the very few django packages out there with viral clauses. This could have had far-reaching ramifications downstream to people who used my projects (django-slugify-processor, a new package I'm releasing, is MIT).
There were also bugs in Django 2.0 release, but I'm not going to help this project at all since it's all a step backward, it's totally incompatible with permissive licenses in the rest of Django ecosystem.
Bleh, sorry again about above. I was able to remove the library from my codebase for now. Use whatever license you want, I'm using django-extension's AutoSlugField for now.