3 ms·

With that statement, Caddy is officially nonfree software. It breaks freedom 1. Edit: I have been corrected. For the record, I still think this is a braindead

With that statement, Caddy is officially nonfree software. It breaks freedom 1. Edit: I have been corrected. For the record, I still think this is a braindead move from Caddy.

Karunamon 9y ago
..with regard to the distributed binaries only. The source code that you can compile yourself has no such restrictions and is still Apache 2.0. Dual licensing like this is common.
diggan 9y ago
Hm, I don't think so (but I'm no expert) > The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Even with or without the above statement, this freedom is not broken by Caddy. You are still allowed to download the source and remove the headers, just as before.
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
  >its presence is required by the non-commercial EULA This statement reads to me that you _cannot_ remove it. It also combines with freedom 3, if you can't distribute your modified version.
  - bpicolo 9y ago
    The EULA only applies to precompiled binaries
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - mholt 9y ago
    The EULA does not apply to the source code. The source code is Apache licensed.
- joepie91_ 9y ago
  The binary build from the Caddy website and the GitHub repository are effectively two separate products, as they are covered by different licenses. The code in the GitHub repository is open-source; but the binary builds from the Caddy website are not.