4 ms·

But then it should be licenced so that people downstream don't think they can use it. The conversation was because the guy stuck a sign saying "anyone can use t

But then it should be licenced so that people downstream don't think they can use it. The conversation was because the guy stuck a sign saying "anyone can use this for whatever reason" and then was unhappy at people doing just that and wanted them to just accept that.

zargon 5y ago
He made it known that he had a preference about the usage of his library that wasn't codified in the license, while also acknowledging the rights he had granted by using the license he did. He may or may not have had reasons for making it MIT. There aren't really standard licenses for situations like this. Using a non-standard license has its own problems. He may not have anticipated getting the attention it did. Or whatever other reasons. I don't think it's necessarily easy to anticipate all future situations and codify them into a license ahead of time. He may change the license going forward as a result of this and that is fine too.
- abdullahkhalids 5y ago
  Just to add on, the license is for the current and past versions of the program. Distributing a program as FOSS is not a promise that the author will continue to improve the software, or that future versions will also be FOSS. So, I think it's reasonable to suggest that "hey I can't maintain this software if you include it in your distribution because of the added workload".
  - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
    > So, I think it's reasonable to suggest that "hey I can't maintain this software if you include it in your distribution because of the added workload". Plausibly, but AFAIK this author (and certainly this package) has never received a bug report from a NixOS user.