Licensing inconsistency

Bắt đầu bằng cách xem xét siêu dữ liệu giấy phép của loopback-connector-sqlite3 và các connector khác được liệt kê trong issue, sau đó so sánh với tuyên bố dual-license được LoopBack công bố. Được xem là hoàn tất khi dự án cung cấp một giải thích rõ ràng, có thẩm quyền về các giấy phép áp dụng và liệu mô tả của các package có nhất quán hay không.

Licenses for Loopback are MIT/Strongloop are they not? Confused by Artistic license on these and other packages since a number are MIT/Strongloop including Mongo and others. Should these not be consistently MIT/Strongloop?

Perhaps there is an oversight here but the ability to make modifications and distribute these in your own code base/apps is what make this open. Can you clarify your position on these things since it is hard to know when requiring modules in node what to expect with Loopback modules and that is a serious turn off.

Please be consistent one way or the other. If it is not MIT, then it makes decision easier on whether to use loopback modules or work with another framework.

The following connectors appear to be inconsistent with the rest that are MIT/Strongloop:
loopback-connector-sqlite3 Artistic/Strongloop
loopback-connector-postgresql Artistic/Strongloop
loopback-connector-soap Strongloop proprietary license
loopback-connector-oracle Strongloop proprietary license
loopback-connector-mssql Strongloop proprietary license

Your advertising for loopback describes it as being:
Dual Licensed: MIT open-source license or StrongLoop license

This is not the case for a significant number of adapters for popular databases. I'll leave this to be answered once but this applies to a number of loopback packages. This is really a general question that applies to the Loopback ecosystem. I think anything that is promoted as Loopback should be expected to be licensed as advertised.