4 ms·
The Competition and Noncompete sections of the license aren’t inline with open source licenses. It’s more of a SSPL style license. The license as a whole feels
by daenney 6y ago
The Competition and Noncompete sections of the license aren’t inline with open source licenses. It’s more of a SSPL style license.
The license as a whole feels a bit like a random hack job.
This project should call itself source available.
- viraptor 6y agoThe non-compete specifically is dangerously under-specified. This is close to crayon license issues https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1445/how-can-a-crayon-license-be-a-problem https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1445/how-can-...
- varispeed 6y agoOpen source != free for all I think it's good that people use alternative licenses. It's about time the situation, where there is a nice project conceived in a garage and developed into maturity with the hands of volunteers and then appropriated by a big corporation that then make billions out of it without sharing any profits, ends. Open source was never meant to be exploited this way, but big corporations started to see it as a big R&D money saver and started promoting it. We should see through that. Developers deserve to be paid and shouldn't be exploited by big corporations who wipe their conscience with Open Source PR.