3 ms·
I'm just trying to understand licenses, but doesn't the choice of MIT contradict the inital "non-commercial purposes" as MIT says 'including without limitation
by bluck 1y ago
I'm just trying to understand licenses, but doesn't the choice of MIT contradict the inital "non-commercial purposes" as MIT says 'including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software' - Therefore, the non-commercial purposes is actually void and I can use the software to the limits of MIT defines? And because it is already MIT, they can relicense only future software but not this piece anymore?
- skwashd 1y agoIANAL but that is my understanding. I created an issue to get some clarification - https://github.com/vantage-sh/vantage-mcp-server/issues/31 https://github.com/vantage-sh/vantage-mcp-server/issues/31
- skwashd 1y agoThe issue was initially closed with the following comment: > Hey Dave, it is as it is stated. The MCP is published with dual licenses depending on your intent. > https://fossa.com/blog/dual-licensing-models-explained/ https://fossa.com/blog/dual-licensing-models-explained/ After further discussion on the ticket the license is now just MIT.
- ddingus 1y agoYou have a couple problems that I can see: One is the MIT license does not prohibit selling. And wrapping it in a "for non-commercial uses" clause creates a contradiction difficult, if not impossible to enforce.