3 ms·
Understood, thank you. Sorry for missing some of those details in your post. I'm going to ensure my licenses make it clear that they are contracts, including w
by gavinhoward 3y ago
Understood, thank you. Sorry for missing some of those details in your post.
I'm going to ensure my licenses make it clear that they are contracts, including with anyone the software is distributed to.
- kemitchell 3y agoYou might find the "Acceptance" section of the Blue Oak Model License handy: https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0#acceptance https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0#acceptance We've published a very liberal license for use of the Blue Oak license text, as well: https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0#permission https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0#permission
- gavinhoward 3y agoAs it turns out, my licenses are based on the Blue Oak License. (That's why I originally asked you to be the lawyer to look over them!) Are you saying the "Acceptance" section is what turns it into a contract? I'll ask my lawyer about this, but as a lawyer who is NOT my lawyer, do you think that preemption would still be a problem if the SFC was suing under the Blue Oak License? By the way, thank you for the liberal license; that was one big reason I started with Blue Oak.