4 ms·
Hey, thanks for the feedback! Bud will always be free for open source projects. I postponed the whole licencing and open-sourcing business because I would li
by urbas 11y ago
Hey, thanks for the feedback!
Bud will always be free for open source projects.
I postponed the whole licencing and open-sourcing business because I would like to determine what would suit Bud the best.
Maybe something like the GPL licence with an additional clause that projects built with bud must be open-sourced too. And perhaps dual-licenced for proprietary cases (something like qt).
Anyways, any feedback on this is topic would be very welcome!
Thanks a bunch!
- egeozcan 11y ago> something like the GPL licence with an additional clause that projects built with bud must be open-sourced too Would this be enforceable, though?
- belorn 11y agoComplex answer, but simplified the answer would be yes. The primary reason why it would be enforceable is that you need a license to run a program (copying to ram, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDY_Industries,_LLC_v._Blizzard_Entertainment,_Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDY_Industries,_LLC_v._Blizzar...). A build program's license could thus include any type of conditions which dictate terms for usage, including what kind of license that project has. The only limits are those inherent to copyright itself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitations_and_exceptions_to_copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitations_and_exceptions_to_...), and consumer protection laws. Consumer protection law would be the best guess as to limit what kind of conditions a product has after sale, but so far most legal system has chosen not to do so, and it get even more complex area when the product is given away for free.
- egeozcan 11y agoThanks for the explanation. The complexity of the copyright system never fails to surprise me.