3 ms·
It's NOT open source as per the readme: "I purposely have not added an open source license to the project and am intentionally retaining copyright for the code,
by notable_user 11y ago
It's NOT open source as per the readme: "I purposely have not added an open source license to the project and am intentionally retaining copyright for the code, meaning that it may not be redistributed (in code or compiled form) without my permission."
- corv 11y agoConfusing! The author states: "You may think it's dumb to have open sourced it then [...] even if it's under copyright. [..] So basically, it's open source so people can learn from it. So this is public source code which is under copyright.
- stevetrewick 11y agoAIUI most FLOSS code is under copyright [0] the distinction being that the author(s) grant others a licence to use, copy and distribute under certain restrictions. It seems that the author here wants people to be able to read the code, but not distribute it, primarily because he does not wish to tread on the toes of f.lux' developers. [0] In fact, AFAICT unless a creator specifically and explicitly waives such, all work is copyright, because Berne treaty.