6 ms·
Thanks for sharing, I haven't seen these before. I'm curious what the viewpoint is from other devs are on sw with a license like this? Would you use sw under e
by freeloaderz 5y ago
Thanks for sharing, I haven't seen these before. I'm curious what the viewpoint is from other devs are on sw with a license like this? Would you use sw under either of those licenses? (They seem reasonable to me).
- seba_dos1 5y agoNo, I wouldn't. Most of what I do requires Free Software licenses or sometimes even GPL compatibility, and such licenses are neither free, open nor GPL compatible. For me, such software wouldn't be much different from proprietary freeware.
- freeloaderz 5y agoSo you wouldn't add a test case, new example, or fix a typo in the docs to gain access to an MIT equivalent license?
- seba_dos1 5y agoIt's not MIT equivalent. It it was, it could be relicensed. In many cases it's not even relevant what I would do or not, because such licenses make it not possible to integrate such code in a project under GPL, or to include it in a free distribution. Looking at these licenses closer, I wonder if Parity could actually be considered free. Seems to my eye like it could be, but IANAL. For practical purposes, I'd probably consider it same as non-free until it's said to be DFSG-compliant. Prosperity sure isn't free though.
- coldpie 5y agoI don't really understand what goal you're trying to achieve that the GPL or LGPL couldn't. As a dev, if I see a project using a license I'm unfamiliar with, I'll probably first look elsewhere as I already understand the ins & outs of GPL- and MIT-style licenses, but not whatever this new thing is. These two licenses in particular are pretty crummy. Define "commercial." When does the 30-day period start? How would my usage be proven one way or the other in court?