4 ms·
My point is CC licenses don't even require the original author to release the source code, you can technically release software using that license as binaries.
by RobotToaster 3y ago
My point is CC licenses don't even require the original author to release the source code, you can technically release software using that license as binaries. So as a license it can be used for both open and closed source software.
It would be rather pointless, other than giving people the right to binary patch and redistribute the file. I'm mostly just splitting hairs because seeing CC licenses used for code annoys me.
- wrs 3y agoThe MIT license doesn’t mention source code, just “Software”. I don’t see any reason you couldn’t release a binary under MIT and not release the source code. It seems basically equivalent to CC-BY.
- matrss 3y ago> My point is CC licenses don't even require the original author to release the source code, you can technically release software using that license as binaries. The same applies to MIT and BSD licenses. That was my point. > It would be rather pointless Agreed, but nothing in the license text prohibits it in any way. Even if it did, as the sole author of some code you are not bound by whatever license you pick, even if it was a copyleft license that would require other people to share their modifications.