Did you know that using Nim's import keyword supposedly constitutes entering into a contract? Are you aware of all the legalese imposed on you by the modules you use (as well as their dependencies, and their dependencies' dependencies, etc)? Here are a few examples:
* The [libravatar](https://nimble.directory/pkg/libravatar) module uses the PPL / "[Peer Production License](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/juancarlospaco/nim-libravatar/master/LICENSE)", self-described as "copyFARleft". It includes language like: "Any use by a business that is privately owned and managed, and that seeks to generate profit from the labor of employees paid by salary or other wages, is not permitted under this license." Even professional lawyers would disagree on what that license actually means exactly. You might need a special permission slip signed by the ghost of Karl Marx... * The license for the [nimwc](https://nimble.directory/pkg/nimwc) module is incorrectly identified as "GPLv3" in nimble metadata, but it's [actually](https://github.com/ThomasTJdev/nim_websitecreator/blob/master/nimwc.nimble) the [PPL](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ThomasTJdev/nim_websitecreator/master/LICENSE) as well. So it's not enough to look in the nimble directory, you have to look at the actual package code to know what "contracts" you've supposedly just agreed to... * The ["anti-fascist" license](https://github.com/jamiebuilds/anti-fascist-mit-license/blob/master/LICENSE) bans use by Trump supporters (and, judging from how many leftists misuse this term, anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders). This hasn't reached the Nim ecosystem yet (as far as I know - I didn't check every single package), but it's only a matter of time... I have been observing the state of Nim ecosystem's [license freedom](https://copyfree.org) for quite some time. I once thought that the relative lack of legal encumberedness could be [a unique selling point](https://voat.co/v/programming/2853775) for Nim. It's been very disappointing to watch Nimble copyfree package percentage fall from [89.2% in Aug 2016](https://archive.fo/zz9t6), [88.1% in Sep 2017](https://archive.fo/YShGX#selection-825.0-825.4), to 85.7% today. Nim's biggest competitor, Dlang, has been moving in the favorable direction instead... Things I recommend: * Checking that the Nimble license metadata matches the license claims in the code. * Limiting the official Nimble module list to just the code with acceptable licenses. I think most people will disagree with me on where this line should be drawn, but it needs to be drawn somewhere... * Politely [nagging](https://archive.fo/7jzCs/3c8f7fb0cb40574f48e753972f0e055c61281839.png) module authors to encourage using the same legal terms as Nim itself: [the good 'ol MIT license](https://writing.kemitchell.com/2016/09/21/MIT-License-Line-by-Line.html), or [equivalent](http://copyfree.org/standard/licenses).
