top | item 29925002 (no title) cogburnd02 | 4 years ago Oh Holy God, not another one!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_proliferation discuss order hn newest HexDecOctBin|4 years ago I shared this one since it was actually drafted by a lawyer, and they explain the various parts of the license and the though-process behind it which I found interesting. masukomi|4 years ago to be clear, this isn't "yet another open source license"I'm pretty sure this doesn't qualify as an "open source" license. This is a commercial license that allows free usage for certain people / companies. cpach|4 years ago Exactly.In the early aughts, Microsoft used to call this concept “shared source” – not open source.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative cogburnd02|4 years ago Even more reason to not use it for anything.
HexDecOctBin|4 years ago I shared this one since it was actually drafted by a lawyer, and they explain the various parts of the license and the though-process behind it which I found interesting.
masukomi|4 years ago to be clear, this isn't "yet another open source license"I'm pretty sure this doesn't qualify as an "open source" license. This is a commercial license that allows free usage for certain people / companies. cpach|4 years ago Exactly.In the early aughts, Microsoft used to call this concept “shared source” – not open source.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative cogburnd02|4 years ago Even more reason to not use it for anything.
cpach|4 years ago Exactly.In the early aughts, Microsoft used to call this concept “shared source” – not open source.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative
HexDecOctBin|4 years ago
masukomi|4 years ago
I'm pretty sure this doesn't qualify as an "open source" license. This is a commercial license that allows free usage for certain people / companies.
cpach|4 years ago
In the early aughts, Microsoft used to call this concept “shared source” – not open source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative
cogburnd02|4 years ago