3 ms·
If you use a non-standard license, I will pass on your project, legal is not going to take the time to review and will just reject. It can be counterproductive
by verdverm 9mo ago
If you use a non-standard license, I will pass on your project, legal is not going to take the time to review and will just reject. It can be counterproductive to your project depending on your goals
You are looking for "ethical" / "permissioned" licenses (as many as there are people's gripes or causes), versus permissionless like MIT / Apache-2 / BSD-3
There is no legal way to prevent things. Bad actors will not care about your license. If you catch them, you can pay lawyers to try and have it enforced, but these licenses have not been tested in court yet, so no one knows who will win.
- internet_points 9mo ago> depending on your goals is the important bit. Is your goal to have your project used by companies which have to "run things through legal", or do you have better goals?
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- gkbrk 9mo agoNot just companies, people too. It will have trouble getting into Linux distro repos. And a lot of devs/users avoid non-open-source projects especially if they went looking for solutions on Github.
- verdverm 9mo agoThe distro repos is a good point and the user went looking for permissionless GitHub projects is even better
- embedding-shape 9mo ago> If you use a non-standard license, I will pass on your project, legal is not going to take the time to review and will just reject. It can be counterproductive to your project depending on your goals For personal projects, that actually sounds like a good thing, didn't think of it that way. Probably I'll start making my projects MIT-but-modified-enough-to-scare-lawyers, and also provide a "clean" MIT license to companies if they agree to pay per month with either money or engineering hours for maintenance. Best of two worlds, would get rid of the worst vampires at least.