That's a step in the right direction, but it's still not Free software. Section 2.3 clearly breaches Freedom 1. [0] If you're serious about this project and wa

That's a step in the right direction, but it's still not Free software. Section 2.3 clearly breaches Freedom 1. [0] If you're serious about this project and want it to be adopted by Free / Open Source software projects, you should use a standard Free and Open Source software licence like the GPL or the MIT licence. It's a bad idea to roll your own non-standard licence, even if its terms are reasonable, and even if it meets the requirements for qualifying as a Free Software licence and an Open Source licence. [1] [2] [3] [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html [1] https://ben.balter.com/2016/08/01/why-you-shouldnt-write-your-own-open-source-license/ https://ben.balter.com/2016/08/01/why-you-shouldnt-write-you... [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20110428141712/http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical https://web.archive.org/web/20110428141712/http://opensource...