Lua Anti-DDoS addition about awesome-resty

[C0nw0nk]

Thanks LoganDark, I will change it to MIT instead since it preserves credit since I did not want to add "No License" because default copyright law would have made it bad for users to engage with the project. But seeing how popular it is I would like for the community to enjoy it and of course those who contribute preserve credit for contributors too at that point so it's a win all around. I will do this right now.

…

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 3:13 PM LoganDark ***@***.***> wrote: The license your project is currently using is known as "all rights reserved" and that basically means that nobody can use your code without first contacting you and negotiating, which is not free or open source at all. The best thing you can do for open-source is to use a permissive open-source license <https://choosealicense.com/> rather than "contact me for details". Even the SSPL (Server-Side Public License <https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license>), which requires users to make public their *entire software stack* and its configuration, is more permissive than All Rights Reserved. However, that is an extremely strong copyleft license to use for such a small script (a.k.a. it scares people away just like ARR), so I would recommend MIT <https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/> instead, which requires preserving credit for your work, but not much else. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#49 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC5DUK4B7D7PQJ34Q3Q4LFLVJUG2JANCNFSM4IOZSC7A> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[bungle]

Added.

[LoganDark]

Legal Usage :
For those who wish to use this in production you should contact me to purchase a private license to use this legally.
For those who wish to use this in a commerical enviorment contact me to come to an agreement and purchase a commerical usage license.
For those who wish to purchase the rights to this from me contact me also to discuss pricing and terms and come to a sensible agreement.

This does not exactly inspire confidence. The repository is otherwise unlicensed. @bungle are you sure this deserves a spot on the list?

[C0nw0nk]

I can remove / alter the copyright disclaimer if users wish. What is the best disclaimer to use for opensource ?

…

On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 3:22 PM LoganDark ***@***.***> wrote: Legal Usage : For those who wish to use this in production you should contact me to purchase a private license to use this legally. For those who wish to use this in a commerical enviorment contact me to come to an agreement and purchase a commerical usage license. For those who wish to purchase the rights to this from me contact me also to discuss pricing and terms and come to a sensible agreement. This does not exactly inspire confidence. The repository is otherwise unlicensed. @bungle <https://github.com/bungle> are you sure this deserves a spot on the list? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#49 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC5DUK7IG5GBGV62XQWUPV3VIPKR5ANCNFSM4IOZSC7A> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[LoganDark]

The license your project is currently using is known as "all rights reserved" and that basically means that nobody can use your code without first contacting you and negotiating, which is not free or open source at all.

The best thing you can do for open-source is to use a permissive open-source license rather than "contact me for details".

Even the SSPL (Server-Side Public License), which requires users to make public their entire software stack and its configuration, is more permissive than All Rights Reserved (however, it's not exactly a free and open source license).

However, that is an extremely strong copyleft license to use for such a small script (a.k.a. it scares people away just like ARR), so I would recommend MIT instead, which requires preserving credit for your work, but not much else.

[LoganDark]

default copyright law would have made it bad for users to engage with the project

May I interest you in the Unlicense then?

[C0nw0nk]

Looks awesome, My only question is obviously contributors would want crediting for their submissions, Maybe not all but some of them if i stick with MIT this allows them credit if i make it unlicensed I assume their contributions they have to explicitly say they want them to be licensed unlicensed ?

…

On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 3:27 PM LoganDark ***@***.***> wrote: default copyright law would have made it bad for users to engage with the project May I interest you in the Unlicense <https://unlicense.org/> then? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#49 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC5DUK7DXHJDLZUZ6C7IWUDVJUINBANCNFSM4IOZSC7A> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[LoganDark]

Looks awesome, My only question is obviously contributors would want crediting for their submissions, Maybe not all but some of them if i stick with MIT this allows them credit if i make it unlicensed I assume their contributions they have to explicitly say they want them to be licensed unlicensed ?

The MIT only requires preserving the copyright notice itself, not the credits of all contributors (unless of course you include them in the license notice). I was more referring to preserving credit of you (for example, "Copyright 2022 C0nw0nk", or your real name).

Common practice when providing credit to contributors is to have a CONTRIBUTORS.md that lists everyone who's made a significant contribution.

I'm not a lawyer, but a pull request usually serves as the disclaimer that the provided code is to be licensed under the repository's license, although a dedicated disclaimer never hurts (some repositories still require it). Note that this is separate from repositories requiring a CLA which does require a dedicated disclaimer, but that's a whole other can of worms.

(Basically, CLAs typically create the ability for the repository owner to change licenses without having to ask for permission from everyone who has ever contributed code, but pull requests do not include that grant by default. I would not recommend adopting one for your project, though)