Sad About License change

[eMerzh]

Hey Guys 👋

first of all, thanks for your work on Apex charts.
I totally get why you would want to change license, seeing big corp using the lib, adding more workload and not giving back at all should be pretty frustrating.

That beeing said, i feel that the way you choosed to tackled that is probably not the best way,
it effectively render the lib not "free software" (libre).
On top of that the criteria seems pretty vague and vaguely described ... not sure how it applies to the wide variety to things.

Maybe there's other ways like going agpl + commercial ? or some other?

hope you reconsider ❤️

[rosco54]

Fortunately versions prior to 5.0.0 are still MIT licensed and usable.

As far as I'm aware permission was not sought from contributors (apart from @junedchhipa) to make this change away from the MIT license, nor am I aware of any requirement to sign code releases or implied releases as part of the contribution process, and no potentially contestable code has been replaced.

Normally every file would have the MIT license included in it but in this case it appears in the covering LICENSE file included with the source code package, where the MIT license text has been removed entirely from v5.0.0 onwards. I'm not sure if this is legal as it could appear to be applying the new license retrospectively to code that is still and will always be MIT licensed and now dependent solely on the source code versioning system to distinguish it.