3 ms·

Issue #2 (https://github.com/garybernhardt/base/issues/2 https://github.com/garybernhardt/base/issues/2) is pure gold. What license is this released under? I w

• saurik 15y ago
  My preference would be "all OSI approved licenses; not any one in particular, but all of them at once" (and yes: this might legally conflict, but I think that would be a feature in this case, allowing for even more hilarious descriptions).
  • garybernhardt 15y ago
    Done: https://github.com/garybernhardt/base/commit/65e8ca5d432be72bbc16f625de002ba90e0f4006 https://github.com/garybernhardt/base/commit/65e8ca5d432be72...
  • bdonlan 15y ago
    IANAL, but it's my understanding that there's no particular conflict here. You'd be licensing the same work under multiple licenses; if any one of them authorizes some particular use, that's enough to be an affirmative defense against copyright infringement. If you violate the terms of one license, that particular license may become void, but as long as some others remain, you're fine. In other words, licenses don't make certain uses of works forbidden; they make them _permitted_. If you license it under both GPLv3 and BSD, and someone does something permitted under BSD but forbidden under GPLv3, the GPLv3 can't forbid the BSD license. That said, the current wording (the 'union of the terms specified' by all OSI licenses) is not multiply licensing, but something far stranger...