4 ms·
Libxml2 Enterprise Edition (AGPL, from the previous maintainer)
- on_the_train 8mo ago"Enterprise edition" is usually a sign of parody projects. But this seems to be serious?
- hobofan 8mo agoWhen has "enterprise edition" ever been the sign of parody projects?
- ginko 8mo agohttps://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpriseEdition https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...
- zvqcMMV6Zcr 8mo agoI remember at least this one: https://github.com/Hello-World-EE/Java-Hello-World-Enterprise-Edition https://github.com/Hello-World-EE/Java-Hello-World-Enterpris...
- alyandon 8mo agoSince I've dealt with "EE" Java in a previous life, that's actually pretty tame as far as parodies go. I hate the fact I can say that. :-/
- planet36 8mo agohttps://projects.haykranen.nl/java/ https://projects.haykranen.nl/java/
- ptrl600 8mo agoI'd assume it's riffing on Java EE.
- Milpotel 8mo agoI hope the code quality will improve and their "we don't need tests because we use fuzzing... sometimes..." attitude changes.
- PeterWhittaker 8mo ago> Sorry, we don't accept code contributions and direct you to the original libxml2 project. This has me puzzled to the point of being dumbfounded: If libxml2-ee has fixed many security and other flaws in libxml2, then what's the point of directing people back to a project that is relatively flawed? Licencing it as AGPL is also interesting, since the original was MIT, though I'm not sure they've worked out all of the kinks, given this example from one of the M4 files: # LICENSE # # Copyright (c) 2011 Maarten Bosmans <mkbosmans@gmail.com> # # Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification, are # permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright notice # and this notice are preserved. This file is offered as-is, without any # warranty.
- qalmakka 8mo agoYou can't just take an MIT/X11 licence, remove it, and relicense it as it's an explicit violation of the MIT/X11 licence. This however only applies to the original code, so any new addition can be under whatever licence you want, including a more restrictive one. That doesn't change your obligation to reproduce the previous copyright notice as instructed by the licence you got the code under
- migueldeicaza 8mo agoCorrect, not many folks understand this.
- LunaSea 8mo agoIn practice, how would you differentiate old code from new code when changes start to flow in?
- 0x457 8mo agoEverything after <GIT SHA> is AGPL unless stated otherwise.
- tannhaeuser 8mo agoI get what Nick is trying to do (allow F/OSS to continue receiving security fixes while requiring commercial users to pay), even forwarded his call for help or other support last year. I'm not sure though relicensing MIT code under AGPL is legally sound if your additions are just bug fixes.
- esbranson 8mo agoThe corporate freeloading issue must be resolved somehow.