4 ms·

I think releasing it on yet-another-open-source-license instead of some of well-known ones severely degrades the possibility for this code to be used by compani

• tbodt 8y ago
  It's the zlib license, which is used by GLFW, SDL, and SFML as well. Companies seem to have no problem using things like SDL, so I think this is fine. Still, it would be nice is to state that is is the zlib license, and to include the license in the repository.
  • loeg 8y ago
    And it looks more or less fundamentally identical to the 3-clause BSD license.
    • cyphar 8y ago
      The zlib license predates 3-clause BSD (zlib was released under the zlib license in 1995, BSD started releasing code under 3-clause BSD in 1999). I will admit that when I first saw the zlib license, I was similarly confused but it's actually a license that is about the same age as most other common licenses (and quite a large body of software is licensed under it).
      • loeg 8y ago
        The 3-clause BSDL is just the 4-clause with clause #3 removed. Per Wikipedia, the 4-clause dates to 1990: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#4-clause_license_(original_%22BSD_License%22) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#4-clause_license_... . (I.e., all of the text in the 3-clause BSD license was written in 1990.)
        • cyphar 8y ago
          No software was licensed under the 3-clause BSD license (because it didn't exist) until 1999. Just because the text is similar to an earlier license doesn't change that software licensed under zlib precedes software licensed under 3-clause BSD. But that's not really the point -- GGGP implied that the license was written from scratch ("yet-another-open-source-license") and that's obviously not true.