LICENSE file is ambiguous about loopback-cli HOT 7 CLOSED

I'm not a loopback user sadly, I'm an open source technologist helping companies use open source. :-)
I will recommend the usage of a later version of loopback. ✔️

from loopback-cli.

The All rights reserved is indeed unnecessary. Reviewing the history, it looks like the policy docs I was following at the time had not been updated to reflect that so I erred on the side of caution.

from loopback-cli.

I'm not a legal person. But it should be fine to have the copyright statement per https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT.

Are you proposing to simply remove All rights reserved?

from loopback-cli.

Yep! :-) Simply remove that line and everything is cool. This will make it a bit easier for finicky legal folks to use your software.

from loopback-cli.

The copyright and license statement from Opensource.org is great (and quite frankly as long as you've done the copyright statement right, it's all you need.)

from loopback-cli.

Besides the LICENSE file, the copyright headers of the source code also contains the "All rights reserved".

@rmg, do you think we can modify the slt copyright command in strong-tools?
I'm looking at some other open source projects from IBM, and they also don't have the "All rights reserved" phrase in the header as well.
https://github.com/IBM/nodejs-itoolkit/blob/master/lib/ProgramCall.js
https://github.com/ibmdb/node-ibm_db/blob/master/lib/odbc.js

from loopback-cli.

@jeremiah, can I assume that you're a new LoopBack 3 user? Would you consider the more recent version LB4 instead? https://github.com/strongloop/loopback-next/.
I'm suggesting this because LoopBack 3 will go end of life at the end of Dec, if you're starting out on using LB, LB4 would be a better choice. https://loopback.io/doc/en/lb4/. (Note: the LICENSE is the same).

from loopback-cli.