Pm2: License needs clarity on main README

[fujifish]

Currently the main README states that PM2 is licensed under AGPLv3. However, the ADVANCED_README states that in addition to AGPLv3, CLI.js is licensed under Apache license.
The main README should reflect the same as the ADVANCED_README.

Also, it would be great if the main README (for clarity) would state that:
"It is allowed to redistribute PM2 as-is and also to embed CLI.js in your code to control PM2 without turning the embedding code into AGPLv3"

[RobertoMalatesta]

+1 : This a SEVERE ISSUE for any possible enterprise use.
Can you please move to an Apache License or some more MIT-like license?

[markrey]

+1 It would be great to go with one license.
Apache , MIT would be great. AGPL is big NO for most of the enterprises.

[harking]

+1 for MIT or Apache license.

[darthcav]

We also share this concern in regard to the licensing of the framework. We will welcome more clarity on this issue. By the way, the file ADVANCED_README refers to a file lib/CLI under an Apache license, but the file does not exist. At least a LGPL license will allow enterprise use.

Furthermore, we contacted keymetrics for a LGPL license (as suggested in the READMEfile) without any concrete response.

[jvecc]

Same concern here.
Can something be done on this licensing issue?

[hirako2000]

In the community dominated by the MIT/Apache software, it is really suspicious to license pm2 as GPL.
The contagion just makes it unbearable and actually prevents a lot of MIT libraries to pull pm2 dependency to provide pm2 out of the box, at risk to have to move to GPL as well.

What's the reasoning behind this?

[FOSS117]

Given https://github.com/Unitech/pm2/blob/master/README.md#license -- would maintainers simply consider switching to an LGPL 2.1 license for pm2 API's use only ? Current AGPL terms definitely causes heartburn for enterprise use.

[ryan-lane]

I'm pretty iffy on the licensing here in general. CLI is importing stuff from lib, so doesn't that make it AGPL?

It's really common for people to import pm2 in their code to make a more custom launcher, which is going to pollute their code without them knowing. pm2 is effectively a library in a lot of cases, and AGPL is a really aggressive choice for a library that's mostly going to screw over people who aren't paying attention, or don't know any better. It's really likely that people are pulling this in transitively and have license violations without knowing.

The sad thing is it doesn't look like there's a CLA or any type of copyright assignment for this project, so I'm guessing it's actually impossible to re-license at this point :(.

[maziyarpanahi]

The part that says For other licenses contact us. clarifies this to me pretty much! If you feel iffy about the licensing, it means you need to contact them and pay for the appropriate license.
Even though I am an indie developer whom nobody cares what I make and how I make it let along to come after me, I still feel like my old forever.js is at least clear as for how I could use it.

[stale[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[samsch]

This is still an unresolved issue.

[stale[bot]]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[harking]

This is still unresolved