3 ms·
I recently ran into a modified MIT license with a no-military clause. My company would not use the otherwise very nice package because, unfortunately, it includ
by biomcgary 7y ago
I recently ran into a modified MIT license with a no-military clause. My company would not use the otherwise very nice package because, unfortunately, it includes an "indirectly" in the language. We don't have anything to do with the military, but our clients are large pharmaceutical companies, so they probably have military contracts.
- ghaff 7y agoJust purely from a practical perspective, lawyers tend to run screaming from a lot of usage-based restrictions. Even if they seem fairly straightforward at first scan, once you start asking questions (as in your case and non-commercial), all but the most trivial uses--in which the license doesn't really matter anyway--start to look like they might fall into a grey area. If your job is managing business risk, it's just not worth it.
- klyrs 7y agoNauty has a clause like this. Which is hilarious because Magma uses Nauty, and the NSA is one of Magma's biggest users if not the biggest. McKay apparently doesn't mind, but refuses to change the license