3 ms·
Forget for a moment that they don't define what they mean by any of this, what they also do is cloud the license. You called it a license addendum... but I don
by sbuttgereit 7y ago
Forget for a moment that they don't define what they mean by any of this, what they also do is cloud the license. You called it a license addendum... but I don't believe that it is from my reading... having said that: you can't tell whether you are right or I am clearly.
There's an old saying (that may well be impolitic these days): "you can't be half pregnant". It seems that's what they maintainers are shooting for... I'd urge them to get off the fence one way or the other.
- partialrecall 7y agoThis is the sort of license that effectively says "If you don't really give a damn about licenses, then you're allowed to use this. If you get pedantic about licenses, then you're not." Similar in principle to AGPLv3 or even WTFPL.
- sbuttgereit 7y agoYes if you read the license itself (which I did). The issue is there's a license section in the README. There they reiterate that they use BSD 3 clause... and then have something that looks like "but...." Again, as I read it: they're BSD 3 clause licensed and the README is an expression of their own (ill-expressed) hopes rather than a licensing requirement.... but I could see how some could be confused and indeed... maybe they are, too: and that's what would worry me about this statement.