GPL2 licence issues

[guillemsola]

Please, consider using an alternate license that better more aligned with the Dapper project

As a result of using this license anyone using this library must be publishing the software too, so this limits usage in many environments or force people to do something illegal

software including (via compiler) GPL-licensed code must also be made available under the GPL along with build & install instructions

[UnoSD]

hi @guillemsola I'd be happy to switch to a more permissive licence, the original choice was mostly for quick, non-legal requirements. I need to figure out if/how I can just replace the licence (maybe it's sufficient to switch the LICENCE file, but I am afraid it may not be that simple as it has been GPL2 for a while), I will keep this open as a reminder, but I can't promise it won't take a while. I do not mind people redistributing my library as part of permanently closed source software (assuming they recognise the author of the library as mandated by most open licences), but I appreciate you may need more legal assurance than me saying "I'm OK with that" :)

[guillemsola]

@UnoSD thanks for considering this.

To give you some more context, I decided to share this as I'm using Snyk to check vulnerabilities and this message caught my attention

License issues:

  ✗ GPL-2.0 license (new) [High Severity][https://snyk.io/vuln/snyk:lic:nuget:moq.dapper:GPL-2.0] in [email protected]
    introduced by [email protected]

I do agree that changing the license type may not be that straightforward as I believe all contributors need to ack it.

[shdarrina]

We've got the same issue; our security team won't allow a GPL 2.0 license. If the license isn't resolved, we'll have to use an alternative approach.