Open source licences are one of those cans of worms I mostly try to avoid. Except it really annoys me when I want to borrow some code and I can't work out what the licence is.
If you're writing sample code or something small, you should include a #licence. However which to use? One of the *BSD or MIT licences is usually a good choice (but be careful which version!), they place minimal requirements on you. However the requirement to include a copyright notice is just annoying for everyone involved (when the code is small). Android Toybox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toybox) solved this with the Zero-clause BSD licence (aka #0BSD); it is a modification of the ISC license, not a BSD one, but the name doesn't matter really.
While 0BSD may not be perfect, I believe it (or MIT-0, which is nearly identical) achieves the best balance of all the "do what you want" licences. I'm mainly talking about "small" pieces of code here; for larger projects it's understandable the licence choice is more nuanced and you may want Apache, #GPL, etc. This is not legal advice. Talk to a lawyer if in doubt.
@thisnorthernboy ...just like a lot of the appeal of #Unity was the integrated #AssetStore that allowed game creators to cheaply and conveniently #license content like that.
I do think that something like that but engine-independent is overdue and would greatly help designers amd artists easily sell their content or find clients...
If you have been using #Unity and you wanna jump ship to the nearest competitor, #GodotEngine is gonna be your best bet. The structure of a project isn't exactly the same, but it's similar enough that it won't take long to adjust.
Below, I'll give a few tips and talk about pain points you might run into, to help you try it out properly, and make an evaluation. #GameDev
It's mostly a #license#compatibility issue to some extend, but since it's MIT-licensed that is somewhat mitigateable and #W4Games was founded specifically to provide this as a commercial option whilst funding the core engine development and backporting stuff that isn't covered by #NDA's like #DirectX12...
Despite www.dnp.org claiming that "DNP3 is an open and public protocol," it seems that the specification is only available to members and membership costs US$400 for an individual. Not really the definition of "open" that I'm used to.
#Paywalling access to standards isn't open - compared to that the anti-competitive #SSPL#license is open despite being designed to make it impossible to do any commercial offering with it (it's worse than #AGPLv3)...
I could at least understand if they said "Available for Licensing under #FRAND terms" if everyone gets to pay the same flat fee...
「 Mojo is a new programming language for AI developers that will grow into being a superset of Python over time. It already supports integrating with arbitrary Python code seamlessly and has a scalable programming model to target performance-critical systems, including accelerators (e.g. GPUs) that are pervasive in AI 」
I am truly looking forward to #Mojo; it sounds like it will make a lot of things a whole lot easier. Keeping access to the huge Python ecosystem is amazing.
But as long as you need to #register before you can look at the #SDK, and there is no published #license for it, it's not "here" in any meaningful sense of the word.
Und für alle die nicht gerade von Wien nach Ulm pendeln wollen, wird es auch einen Kurs zur Vorbereitung auf die Amateurfunkprüfung von *@metafunk im *@metalab geben. Beginn am 22. 9. 2023
In 1989, we published the GNU #GPL. It is at the core of software freedom and it protects users' rights to run, copy, modify, and share. Read more about free software licensing https://www.fsf.org/licensing
Do you think developing indie games and publishing its code under #GPL 3.0 at v1.0 release would be a viable, well working business strategy? @fsf#games#development#coding#license#poll
https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/hashicorp-adopts-business-source-license "However, there are other vendors who take advantage of pure OSS models [...] for their own commercial goals, without providing material contributions back. We don’t believe this is in the spirit of open source."
That is OSS! That's what happens most of the time! Contributing to OSS is facing the digital tragedy of the commons first-hand. IMO better define a business model with this assumption, than to relicense and make a bad impression.
I don’t know what to think about it. Yes, it’s incredibly hard to create a business and a market when making everything open source. I’m not familiar with this new license and I don’t know if that’s a valid move or not.
I love when a company who built their whole business on top of open source developed by others (Linux, Ruby, Go, etc) decry "vendors who take advantage of pure OSS models, and the community work on OSS projects, for their own commercial goals" switch to a proprietary license rather than a copyleft that actually codifies the culture of reciprocal sharing.
I.e. "Any used versions - released as part of a product or on their own - must have their #SourceCode released in public for everyone to access and reproducably build with no form of barriers!"
Any insights how #fedora and #debian will handle the license change in #vagrant? I don't hope they would include BSL code in the distro, so… freeze the version of vagrant before the license change? Any prominent OSS fork already? #opensource#osi#license#freesoftware
People who know more about #oss#license then I do:
I think it really shouldn't be a issue to relicense code from the PHP 3.0 to the PHP 3.1 license, but would it also be possible to relicense it to MIT without contacting each author?