2 ms·
Yep i understand it wouldn't be opensource per se, i think the question really is, should it be done, if yes why, if no why not and has someone else here on HN
by throwaway86534 7y ago
Yep i understand it wouldn't be opensource per se, i think the question really is, should it be done, if yes why, if no why not and has someone else here on HN done it before or have seen a project with such a license before?
- mindcrime 7y agoI think we've all seen lots of examples where somebody took an existing license and tacked some extra verbiage onto it. The recent controversy around the "Commons Clause" stuff is a good example. My take is just this: if it's a deeply held ideological thing for you, then by all means, go for it. But if you want your project to be widely adopted / used, etc., then in pragmatic terms I think you'd be better served sticking with a straight-forward, conventional license. Not everybody cares about this sort of thing, but a lot of people get uneasy using projects that use "non-standard" licenses.