We'd love to use Hangfire. But LGPL is a deal breaker. Not because we are malicious exploiters. But because it's too complicated and we can't be 100% sure we couldn't be sued. Is it really necessary?
gbarker
All 5 comments
+1.
Definitely not an expert on the topic but always felt like LGPL is confusing at best. And I must also produce useless documentation about how to replace the dll to customer who'll never read, but they could potentially sue me if I don't.
Well, I love the product and I'll use it nevertheless, but yes, MIT would be... definitely less "infectuous"
marcoCasamento
on 22 Sep 2015
I totally agree with you, guys. I chosen LGPL due to paranoid reasons, that someone will take the software or its part and release another background processing framework. I felt more secure with this license at the very beginning, despite this fear is ridiculous and absurd. I really wanted to see another background processing framework in .NET, but didn't want to compete with myself.
Nevertheless, a while ago I began to think about changing the license to MIT too, but I'm not in a hurry to do this step, at least before 2.0.
odinserj
on 23 Sep 2015
It's been a few years now. Any chance of a switch to MIT now?
It would really help us folks stuck in corporations where LGPL is an auto-no.
gauravspatel
on 21 Mar 2017
Another year has passed by. Is it ever going to change or better forget it?
Thanks
ferreirix
on 23 Feb 2018
I would still be interested in this… as mentioned before, for some kind of applications this is sadly still a no-go.
marsop
on 17 Nov 2020
Related issues
dealproc
·
3Comments
shorbachuk
·
4Comments
plmwong
·
3Comments
thurfir
·
4Comments
vikramjb
·
3Comments
Most helpful comment
Another year has passed by. Is it ever going to change or better forget it?
Thanks