3 ms·

Huh, homebrew non-free license. I wonder if the intention was even to make it non-free. It does not allow commercial use, which is forbidden by default. Oh wel

by jordigh 11y ago

Huh, homebrew non-free license. I wonder if the intention was even to make it non-free. It does not allow commercial use, which is forbidden by default. Oh well, at least homebrew licenses are getting rarer and rarer these days.

cowsandmilk 11y ago
> It does not allow commercial use, which is forbidden by default. what are you claiming here?
- jordigh 11y ago
  The MIT license says, "Permission is hereby granted, [snip] including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software" The right to sell the software is part of the open source and free software definitions. A license needs to specify this, because by default copyright law does not grant this right. This homebrew license does not allow selling the software, thus it fails to be open source. Failing to meet this part of the definition is why MAME wasn't open source either until last week.
  - cowsandmilk 11y ago
    What part of their home-brew license does not allow commercial use? MAME was not free because they explicitly said "Redistributions may not be sold, nor may they be used in a commercial product or activity."
    - jordigh 11y ago
      Anything not explicitly allowed is forbidden. That's how copyright law works. "All rights reserved" is the default. You don't even have to claim it. All rights are reserved unless you relinquish them.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > Anything not explicitly allowed is forbidden. That's how copyright law works. Well, no, copyright law works by "anything explicitly made exclusive to the copyright holder by law, and not explicitly allowed by either other provisions of law or the copyright holder is forbidden, unless its in the rather ill-defined -- far from explicitly delimited -- domain of 'fair-use', or implicitly permitted by the copyright holder under implicit license, or..."
stefantalpalaru 11y ago
> It does not allow commercial use It does, but I agree that the author should choose an established license instead of trying to make one up by putting 3 lines in the README: https://github.com/mkeeter/antimony https://github.com/mkeeter/antimony
- jordigh 11y ago
  I don't see anything that says that it allows commercial use. It says, "produced, modified, distributed, performed, and displayed for any purpose." Perhaps "for any purpose" is another catch-all for selling, but I'm not sure.
  - jamessb 11y ago
    'Selling' and 'Commerical use' are not equivalent. For example, using CAD software to design a product that you subsequently sell would be 'commerical use' of the software, and would be encompassed by the 'any purpose' clause.
    - jordigh 11y ago
      "Commercial use" encompasses selling. You are allowed to sell all free software and all open source. This guarantee forms part of the definition. Software that does not have permission to sell it is not free software and is not open source.

by jordigh 11y ago

cowsandmilk 11y ago

> It does not allow commercial use, which is forbidden by default. what are you claiming here?

jordigh 11y ago
The MIT license says, "Permission is hereby granted, [snip] including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software" The right to sell the software is part of the open source and free software definitions. A license needs to specify this, because by default copyright law does not grant this right. This homebrew license does not allow selling the software, thus it fails to be open source. Failing to meet this part of the definition is why MAME wasn't open source either until last week.
- cowsandmilk 11y ago
  What part of their home-brew license does not allow commercial use? MAME was not free because they explicitly said "Redistributions may not be sold, nor may they be used in a commercial product or activity."
  - jordigh 11y ago
    Anything not explicitly allowed is forbidden. That's how copyright law works. "All rights reserved" is the default. You don't even have to claim it. All rights are reserved unless you relinquish them.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Anything not explicitly allowed is forbidden. That's how copyright law works. Well, no, copyright law works by "anything explicitly made exclusive to the copyright holder by law, and not explicitly allowed by either other provisions of law or the copyright holder is forbidden, unless its in the rather ill-defined -- far from explicitly delimited -- domain of 'fair-use', or implicitly permitted by the copyright holder under implicit license, or..."

stefantalpalaru 11y ago

> It does not allow commercial use It does, but I agree that the author should choose an established license instead of trying to make one up by putting 3 lines in the README: https://github.com/mkeeter/antimony https://github.com/mkeeter/antimony

jordigh 11y ago
I don't see anything that says that it allows commercial use. It says, "produced, modified, distributed, performed, and displayed for any purpose." Perhaps "for any purpose" is another catch-all for selling, but I'm not sure.
- jamessb 11y ago
  'Selling' and 'Commerical use' are not equivalent. For example, using CAD software to design a product that you subsequently sell would be 'commerical use' of the software, and would be encompassed by the 'any purpose' clause.
  - jordigh 11y ago
    "Commercial use" encompasses selling. You are allowed to sell all free software and all open source. This guarantee forms part of the definition. Software that does not have permission to sell it is not free software and is not open source.