3 ms·

Hmm, I'm not sure this meets the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd It discriminates against people who are odious

• charcircuit 3y ago
  It is a EULA too. Open source software doesn't have a EULA.
  • orra 3y ago
    > Open source software doesn't have a EULA. I disagree. First, loads of proper (OSI-approved) Open Source licenses say either your downloading or use requires acceptance of the terms, or that using the software implies acceptance of the terms. Having to agree to a license, for use even without redistribution, makes these (permissive) EULAs. For example: APL-1.0, APSL-2.0, CAL-1.0, CECILL-2.1, CNRI-Python, EPL-1.0, EPL-2.0, Frameworx-1.0, IPL-1.0, MS-PL, MS-RL, OCLC-2.0, RPSL-1.0, Unicode Inc. License Agreement, and Watcom-1.0, are all framed this way. Of course, other open source licenses like the GPL explicitly say acceptance is not required for use. Moreover, the most popular permissive licenses such as Apache-2.0, BSD, and MIT, grant the right to use, without saying they require your acceptance. Second, the copyright grant versus contract (EULA) distinction may be US specific, or certainly it isn't worldwide. Regardless, we agree this joke (“ROFL”) license clearly isn't open source, for other reasons.
• moffkalast 3y ago
  Yeah I'm not sure about this one, it's all very restrictive with lots of stipulations. I think I'll go with WTFPL instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL