3 ms·
The blog post and the README both seem to encourage use of the project. And a license that prevents all use including personal is very rare and not exactly in t
by dahart 5y ago
The blog post and the README both seem to encourage use of the project. And a license that prevents all use including personal is very rare and not exactly in the spirit of GitHub. So I’m curious why both the blog and your README don’t mention explicitly that you don’t want allow use or explain why. Would it be worth putting something at the top of the README?
- kook_throwaway 5y agoOP said: "I also think it shows that licenses really don't matter all that much as some people think". I doubt they would be unable to sleep at night because of a license violation.
- kodah 5y ago> And a license that prevents all use including personal is very rare and not exactly in the spirit of GitHub Non-free licensed code has been on GitHub for quite some time. It's not only about free software and you should not assume so, as in all software. Edit: changed FOSS to "free"
- bo1024 5y agoJust to clarify, FOSS has significant provisions above and beyond allowing personal use. The term non-free is very different from "not allowed to use at all".
- kodah 5y agoYeap, you're right. There are lots of terms to describe free and non-free software. I meant "free" in any capacity, for clarification.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- WesolyKubeczek 5y agoSo what of it? Show me a court verdict that throws the license out of the window because README led you to believe something. It would be an interesting precedent, forcing companies to comply with everything their advertisements say and doing away with any sort of fine print and ToS. I’m all for it, in fact. Total Ankh-Morporkization!