3 ms·

https://github.com/kryptco/krypton-android/blob/e5e1399caea422f36698f503c2d032b6be2c074d/LICENSE https://github.com/kryptco/krypton-android/blob/e5e1399caea4...

• CaliforniaKarl 8y ago
  Their CONTRIBUTING file does say "We are currently researching what type of license makes the most sense for Kryptonite." On the other hand, that file was last updated on `master` in January 2017.
• thrillgore 8y ago
  Someone paid attention to what Redislabs did, and wanted to get ahead of it. In the most ass way possible.
  • ramses0 8y ago
    Open Source != Free Software. "Free as in beer, not as in speech." You're welcome to pick your own license / source availability terms for your own work.
  • type0 8y ago
    Both are source available software [0], other than that you can't compare them. Krypton is fully proprietary nothing more nothing less, what RedisLabs did was a complete disservice to the whole open source phenomena without addressing any actual business concerns. They misinterpreted the whole clause thing to somehow say that your software can be both open and closed at the same time (it can't). They could at least had maybe done a minimal research and maybe learned somethings from Suns community source SCSL [1] or other similar liceses from the past and they even didn't bother doing that (the irony that SCSL is now hosted at Oracle speaks for itself). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software [1] https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/scsl-1-1-149938.txt https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/scsl-1-1-149938.txt