4 ms·
>So it's up to them to keep using a version that won't get fixes or new features or accept the new license. Users can always fork the old version. We can't for
by yyyk 4y ago
>So it's up to them to keep using a version that won't get fixes or new features or accept the new license.
Users can always fork the old version. We can't force the ImageSharp team to maintain software under a licence they don't want.
>After having looked at the license, it seems reasonable enough to me aside from the technicalities others have brought up.
It's reasonable in theory, in practice I'd rather avoid entangling $WORK with potential liabilities. I prefer more clearcut licences (require payment for all commerical use or don't require at all).
- bmitc 4y ago> I prefer more clearcut licences (require payment for all commerical use or don't require at all). I agree with that. I've always liked the way vvvv communicates their licensing: * https://vvvv.org/blog/vvvv-gamma-licensing https://vvvv.org/blog/vvvv-gamma-licensing * https://www.visualprogramming.net/#Licensing https://www.visualprogramming.net/#Licensing * https://store.vvvv.org/ https://store.vvvv.org/ I've always been curious about how well it works for them.