Docs: Improve Clarity of OSL-3.0 License in README.md

[melodysdreamj]

Description

This pull request proposes an update to the README.md file to provide a clearer and more accessible explanation of the OSL-3.0 license implications for TrailBase users.

Motivation

Potential users might misunderstand the OSL-3.0 license, particularly its copyleft aspects, and hesitate to adopt TrailBase due to concerns about needing to disclose their own application's source code. While detailed clarification exists in docs/src/content/docs/license.md and the README FAQ, making this information more prominent and explicit in the main README.md "License" section can significantly alleviate these concerns upfront.

The goal is to ensure that users understand that using TrailBase (e.g., via client libraries, for static hosting, or with server-side hooks/functions) does not obligate them to release their application code under OSL-3.0, as per TrailBase's interpretation. This obligation only applies to modifications of TrailBase's own core code.

Changes Based on User-Provided Text

• The "License" section in README.md has been updated to:
  • Clearly state the license is OSL-3.0 with a link to the official text.
  • Link to TrailBase's Official License Page for detailed interpretation.
  • Explicitly explain that using TrailBase client libraries, server-side hooks/functions, or for static web hosting does not make the user's application a derivative work subject to OSL-3.0's copyleft provisions. The OSL-3.0's copyleft provision does not apply to original work in these scenarios.
  • Reiterate that copyleft applies only to modifications/extensions of the TrailBase library code itself.
  • Maintain the disclaimer that this is not legal advice and include information on requesting exceptions.

Benefits

• Reduces potential Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) for new and existing users regarding licensing.
• Improves the onboarding experience by providing crucial license information upfront.
• Ensures the README.md accurately reflects the project's official stance on how OSL-3.0 applies to common usage scenarios.

This change aims to help users confidently adopt TrailBase, knowing how the license pertains to their work.

[ignatz]

Thanks for clarifying the intent, much appreciated. You capture the intent very well.

May I ask how authoritative you are in the matter? Maybe even a law professional? I'm mostly wondering if you could help me with some long-standing questions:

Reduces potential Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) for new and existing users regarding licensing.

The uncertainty is to some extend a reflection of my own ignorance. Specifically, I did have a call call-to-action in the original phrasing, which you picked up on 🙏. You're no proposing to make it more definitive, which is likely a good thing.
However, my biggest uncertainty remains: how well do the stated intent and the license actually align? My laymen concern is that ultimately it's the license that is binding for users and not the intent. Do you have any insights or prior experience with the OSL?

Otherwise, I'd do some minor adjustments, mostly restoring the call-to-action. WDYT?

Really appreciated!

[melodysdreamj]

Hi ignatz, thank you so much for creating and maintaining this wonderful project! And thank you as well for your insightful questions and comments.

First, I want to clarify that I'm not a legal professional. This response is based on my understanding and research, put together with assistance from Gemini Pro.

I completely agree with your point that the license text itself holds the ultimate legal binding force. A description in README.md cannot directly modify the license terms or overturn their legal effect.

However, the point I was trying to make is that for licenses like OSL-3.0, which might be relatively newer or where case law isn't extensively established for specific use cases, ambiguity can arise in interpreting its clauses or scope of application. In such situations, when project maintainers or the original author clearly state their 'intent' and 'interpretation' regarding the license (for example, in the README or official documentation), it can have a significant 'influence' in the following ways:

1. Guidance for Interpretation: If a legal dispute were to occur and a license clause was found to be ambiguous in a particular context, a court would likely try to determine the licensor's (in this case, the TrailBase project's) intent. Consistently and publicly stated interpretations (like those in a README) can serve as important reference material or evidence of that intent. This becomes particularly relevant when case law is sparse, as the original 'intent' regarding the license's application scope can carry more weight.

2. Building User Trust and Predictability: A clear interpretation helps reduce FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) for users when they are trying to understand the license terms and use the project. Users are likely to rely on the project's official interpretation, which can effectively act as a guideline within the community regarding the license's scope.

3. Indirect Application of Good Faith Principles: If a project provides a clear interpretation (e.g., "this type of usage does not trigger the copyleft provisions of OSL-3.0"), and users rely on that interpretation in good faith, it might be more difficult for the project to later retract that interpretation or assert a conflicting one, especially to the detriment of those users.

Therefore, my aim with the PR to clarify the license section in the README was to clearly communicate TrailBase project's intent and understanding of OSL-3.0's application scope to users. This is not an act of changing the license itself, but rather an attempt to positively leverage the 'influence' of a clear official interpretation to reduce confusion and allow users to adopt the project with more confidence.

Your points have definitely helped me think more deeply about this. Thank you again. Please let me know if you have any other thoughts or points for discussion.

[ignatz]

thank you so much for creating and maintaining this wonderful project!

Of course. Just happy it's useful to you.

Thanks for clarifying. All of this makes a lot of sense and I certainly don't want to induce fear :). I have a very hard time imagining ever getting into an actual legal dispute to enforce the license anyway. Sounds like way too much hassle :).

Also thank for being upfront about the use of Gemini. It did feel a bit verbose but didn't want to assume. I'll merge and then tweak a little. Mostly to make it more compact but also to be a bit more transparent. At the end of the day, I'm not a business and am happy to admit my own ignorance :) - not or the sake of uncertainty but rather transparency

[ignatz]

Just merged a modified version of your changes as 2d5143a, which is hopefully in line with your original intent:

This commit updates the "License" section in README.md to explicitly
state that using TrailBase client libraries, hooks, functions, or its
static web hosting features does not subject user applications to OSL-3.0's
copyleft provisions.

Let me know if that's accurate. Happy to massage it further.

Thanks for your contribution. Much appreciated 🙏

[melodysdreamj]

Hi ignatz,

Thank you so much for your comprehensive and truly excellent revisions in commit 2d5143a! Your updated README.md text, covering both the "Contributing" section and the very clear "License" explanation (including the exception clause), is fantastic and clarifies everything perfectly.

I've now resolved the conflicts by adopting your complete version from main. The README.md in this PR should now fully reflect your changes.

Honestly, your version is a significant improvement – it's clear, polished, thoroughly addresses all the initial concerns, and is exceptionally well-written. It’s much better than what I initially proposed!

Thank you again for taking the time to craft such a well-thought-out explanation and for significantly enhancing this!

[ignatz]

:) Thank you @melodysdreamj for reaching out, raising your concerns and providing an excellent starting point. Much appreciated.