3 ms·

Where are you seeing any of those terms and caveats? The LICENSE file in the repo appears to be the unmodified GPLv3.

• Brian_K_White 2y ago
  The readme. The fact that the licence file and the readme conflict is just yet another part of the same problem.
  • Gormo 2y ago
    The items in the readme all read as warnings and disclaimers, not as enforceable terms of the license agreement. It's basically saying everything you do with this is solely at your own risk, and if you use it in production, any liability is on you. The attribution request is a "should", not a "must", and not part of the license. Personally, I wouldn't interpret anything in the readme as binding conditions.
    • Brian_K_White 2y ago
      The readme stipulates several things which are allowed and not allowed. They are not disclaimers nor advice as worded when I read them. You can't ignore any stated terms and conditions you don't like. The terms an conditions apply no matter where they are written. The readme is no different than any other file, like for example comments in a random source file. I did not say anything about attribution. GPL3 already requires attribution and is not a problem. Similarly my suggested CC-BY-SA includes BY.
      • Gormo 2y ago
        > The readme stipulates several things which are allowed and not allowed. I mean, not really -- it's mostly just a big disclaimer of liability, and the only time it uses the phrase "not permitted", it's also just amounts to another disclaimer of liability in that it's saying that it's "not permitted" to use the product without assuming full responsibility for the associated risks.