Question regarding license

[swaroopar]

Question regarding license

[jamesmills]

Hey all, bit late to the party but the explanation above is sound. The Treeware licence is not a contractual obligation. It's just something to try raise awareness and help the world. The MIT licence is the main licence in this instance.

[mrlubos]

I reached out to @JamesMessinger, I'll let you know if I hear back

[mrlubos]

Thanks for opening an issue @swaroopar. I'll have a look if we can move away from that dependency, we would need to find an alternative for dereferencing specs

[swaroopar]

Thank you @mrlubos. I fear that this dependency could be a problem to many. I oversaw it until today since the json-schema-ref-parser library at one place says that it is open sourced under MIT and then in the README, there is a special clause.

[mrlubos]

@swaroopar James no longer works on APIDevTools, but he provided his understanding.

Treeware isn't a license. It's just a style of software distribution, like "freeware", "shareware", etc. All of the APIDevTools projects are licensed under the MIT license and nothing else. The MIT license is the only license listed on the GitHub repos, the NPM packages, and in the LICENSE file for each project. The Treeware verbiage in the ReadMe file is just an encouragement to donate a tree. It's not binding or enforceable at all, nor is it intended to be.

I also tried to reach out to @philsturgeon who's an active maintainer but haven't heard back yet, hence the delay in my response to you. I will close this issue for now, feel free to reopen if you think more information is required.

[swaroopar]

@mrlubos Thank you very much for following up. Do you know if there is any documentation available online which confirms this understanding?

[mrlubos]

Best source for this would be Phil or @jamesmills (I reached out to James too and will update you if I hear back)

[mrlubos]

Thanks for stopping by and confirming @jamesmills!

[swaroopar]

@jamesmills @mrlubos thank you for the answer.