4 ms·
How this could be named open source but actually be licensed under a creative commons non comercial license (BY-NC-SA 4.0) https://doc.kerberos.io/opensource/l
by kristianpaul 5y ago
How this could be named open source but actually be licensed under a creative commons non comercial license (BY-NC-SA 4.0)
https://doc.kerberos.io/opensource/license/ https://doc.kerberos.io/opensource/license/
- fooblat 5y agoIt does seem like an odd choice given that Creative Commons specifically recommends against it[0]. That alone would make me unlikely to use this project. 0. https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm...
- remram 5y agoSeems like v3 is MIT (but not yet released): https://github.com/kerberos-io/opensource/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/kerberos-io/opensource/blob/master/LICENS...
- ghastmaster 5y ago"Open Source" means the source code is accessible, usually to the entire public. "Closed Source" means the source code is not accessible. Whether the source is open or not does not limit what type of license that can be applied to it. For example, I can write a program and not release it to any other soul and give it an MIT license. Conversely I could publish code on github available to the public and apply a very strict license.