3 ms·
This wg-easy? Definitely not an OSI approved license, but does look like they made an attempt in the spirit of GPL, no? https://github.com/wg-easy/wg-easy/blo
by repelsteeltje 3y ago
This wg-easy?
Definitely not an OSI approved license, but does look like they made an attempt in the spirit of GPL, no?
https://github.com/wg-easy/wg-easy/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/wg-easy/wg-easy/blob/master/LICENSE.md
> You may:
> - Use this software for yourself;
> - Use this software for a company;
> - Modify this software, as long as you:
> * Publish the changes on GitHub as an open-source & linked fork;
> * Don't remove any links to the original project or donation pages;
> You may not:
> - Use this software in a commercial product without a license from the original author;
- byteknight 3y agoThis is accurate. I just recently added the GUI from wg-easy as a revival of the project. If you want to fully open source version you can go back a couple commits before I added the GUI.
- josephcsible 3y agoEither there's a giant loophole in that license or it prevents you from modifying wg-easy at all. In particular, the prohibition on commercial use is clearly not open source, so the only way you could comply with the requirement to publish your changes in an open-source fork would be for your fork to have a different license. If that is allowed, then the giant loophole is that you could pick MIT, and then the rest of the world could use your fork and ignore the original's license. If that's not allowed, then there's no way for you to comply with that requirement and so you can't modify wg-easy at all.
- byteknight 3y agoI think you're misunderstanding how licenses work. Being that wire hole is a conglomerate of a multitude of projects I am required to utilize the most restrictive version of that license. I believe you're also thoroughly misunderstanding the license terms that are present. The license says that you can utilize it for a commercial settings and in a commercial environment you just cannot resell the product. This means that an Enterprise can openly use it within their Enterprise they just cannot sell it as a service that they offer. While this is not the license that I would have chosen for a Greenfield project but at the moment I am at the mercy of the licenses in place for the projects that I am using. Once I replace the UI with a proprietary one everything will be fully open source the way it's intended
- josephcsible 3y agoSorry, everywhere I said "this" there I meant wg-easy, not WireHole. I just fixed it to clarify that. > Once I replace the UI with a proprietary one everything will be fully open source the way it's intended Huh? Proprietary is basically the opposite of open source.
- ranguna 3y agoI'm guessing they meant "in-house".
- byteknight 3y agoApologize for the semantics. By proprietary I mean that I will develop a new UI, have full and whole rights to do with the project that I choose and that would be to fully open source it
- mlfreeman 3y agoI would suggest replacing "proprietary" with "in-house" then.
- byteknight 3y agoSuggest as you wish. It's purely semantic and I've since clarified :)
- cge 3y agoYour license does not seem quite the same as wg-easy's. Wg-easy's states that the allowed uses are "for yourself" or "for a company". Yours states "for personal purposes" or "for a company". As an academic/non-profit researcher who frequently works through my personal devices, I presumably can't use wg-easy in any workplace setting, but presumably can't legally use your software at all.
- AshamedCaptain 3y ago"Spirit of the GPL" not really, and the terms you quoted already make it incompatible with the GPL itself. Pretty draconian if you ask me (Github???).
- repelsteeltje 3y agoDraconian, perhaps. Or just clumsy. I leaned not to attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence.