question(licensing): coordinate Cloud scope and contributor communication
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Newbie friendliness
- 20/100
- Issue type
- Feature
- Clarity
- Clearly specified
- Activity status
- Active
- Tech stack
- go
- Domain
- developer-experience
Research direction
Start with the root LICENSE, GitHub contribution terms, and the cited cloudserver, cloudstore, dashboard, auth, Dockerfile, and cloud-image workflow references. The issue says the bounded audit did not establish complete provenance or a specific additional-consent gap. A maintainer decision would need to settle rights-holder authority, Cloud scope, licensor, license variant, and version cutoff before any proposal; no code change is requested.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
Existing Issue Search
- I searched existing issues and will add evidence to a canonical tracker when applicable.
Question
What scope, provenance evidence, and contributor communication process should be settled before considering a change to the Engram Cloud server license?
Informational coordination only. This is not a request for legal acceptance or contributor signatures. It does not authorize implementation, a license change, a CLA rollout, a PR, or individual contributor outreach.
Why does this need issue tracking?
A bounded public audit identified durable policy and technical decisions that should not be conflated with a blanket request for contributor consent. A tracked question gives maintainers one place to distinguish documented permissions, actual gaps, and decisions that still need rights-holder or legal review.
Current licenses and contribution rules remain in force. This issue is not implementation approval.
Affected Area
Project workflow or policy
Release Context
Not release-specific. Public main snapshot: a6f66c2ea21f6ec2fcec4b4d6d54c576bb069897 (2026-10-28 21:06:49 UTC).
Additional Context
Direction under discussion, not a licensing decision
- Keep Engram core and the Cloud client under MIT and preserve existing grants and notices.
- Consider FSL 1.1 only for a precisely defined Cloud-server scope. The future MIT/Apache-2.0 variant, licensor and effective version cutoff remain undecided.
- Welcome internal adoption by companies of any size and compatible third-party professional services. Paid consulting is not automatically a competing use.
Existing permission evidence
- The root MIT license expressly permits modification, distribution, sublicensing and sale subject to notice preservation. Existing MIT grants cannot be withdrawn by publishing this issue.
- Pico CSS 2.1.0 has MIT notices; the identified htmx 2.0.4 upstream license is 0BSD. Pico license, htmx license. Exact upstream asset-byte equivalence and shipped-notice coverage were not fully audited.
- GitHub contribution terms describe a default inbound repository-license grant, not proof of actual ownership, employer authority or the absence of a separate agreement.
- No specific additional-consent gap was established by this bounded audit. That is not legal clearance, and it does not establish that every contributor must sign again or that no additional permission could be needed.
Audit scope and limitations
- Licensing/provenance markers were reviewed in 81 files across cloudserver, cloudstore and dashboard, not every implementation or dependency.
- Seven public author handles appeared in the examined directory histories. They are not an exhaustive rights-holder inventory or ownership shares.
- Cloud was removed with a separate-development reference and reintroduced as added files. Imported/copied ancestry and shared-dependency authorship remain incomplete.
- Auth imports cloudstore and store, so it cannot simply be assumed client-only.
- Docker builds the whole CLI, while current image metadata declares MIT. These are current distribution facts, not an allegation of a present licensing violation.
Decisions still open
- Establish imported-code provenance, actual rights-holder authority and any applicable separate agreements.
- Define a prospective file/shared-package/binary-distribution scope, including third-party notices, before proposing effective license edits.
- Identify the licensor, exact FSL future-license variant and version cutoff; separately review any alternative commercial-licensing grant.
- Distinguish transparency notices from specific permission requests that are actually necessary. Silence or a reaction is not new consent.
Please keep this as an informational maintainer question. No blanket acceptance collection, individual collaborator mentions, CLA setup, PR or code/license change is requested here.
- Dominant language
- Go
- Stars
- 7.1k
- Forks
- 729
- Avg merge
- 9h 5m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 301
Getting set up
Starts the project's dev container in your browser, under your own GitHub account.
- No Dockerfile or Docker Compose file
- Has a pull request template
- Read the contributing guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from Gentleman-Programming/engram
-
status:needs-review type:bug
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 82/100
Gentleman-Programming/engram#2138 · 1 comment ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
status:needs-review
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 85/100
Gentleman-Programming/engram#2065 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
bug(cloud): dashboard read model is rebuilt from full history after every write (~30 s first load)Openstatus:needs-review type:bug
Difficulty 5/5 Over a week Newbie friendliness 35/100
Gentleman-Programming/engram#2200 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
status:needs-review type:feature
Difficulty 4/5 3-5 days Newbie friendliness 35/100
Gentleman-Programming/engram#2197 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
status:needs-review type:feature
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 1/100
Gentleman-Programming/engram#2196 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
All issues in Gentleman-Programming/engram
Similar issues
-
[Bug]: Anthropic Responses converter forwards empty text blocks, upstream rejects with 400Possibly taken @david-choi-querypie claimed this today. Open
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
area:web p3
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
Lets-Parley/Parley#912 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
bug observability
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 86/100
sagar2395/snowopslabs#164 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
enhancement help wanted
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100
Git-Hospital/githealthcheck#61 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
afreidah/s3-orchestrator#1824 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day