top | item 45629699

(no title)

pmahoney | 4 months ago

If that phrase "for individuals" means "for individuals only", then it isn't GPLv3, but some bespoke non-free license.

My speculation: it was intended to mean: use it under terms of GPLv3 (for commercial purposes or not), OR contact to negotiate different terms.

But there's a built-in assumption that no commercial entity would _want_ to use it under GPLv3 terms.

discuss

binarycrusader|4 months ago

I think it's more subtle than that:

https://web.archive.org/web/20250719210835/https://www.wello...

The project is a mix of licenses since it's a mix of components. If I had to guess, they intend source code and maybe the binaries under GPLv3 that they own, fonts under SIL Open Font, but "brushes" and "splash images" under CC_BY_NC, etc. mean they could probably constrain certain uses:

  Our Paint is a painting application.

  Copyright (C) 2022-2025 Wu Yiming

  Learn more about LaGUI: https://ChengduLittleA.com/lagui

  Support the development: https://patreon.com/ChengduLittleA

  Our Paint is licensed with GNU GPL v3, and Noto fonts are licensed with SIL Open Font license. You should be able to find details about the license in the source code directory.

  The splash screen images under Resources are licensed with Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0). You can not use these images commercially, but you are free to contact the author for licensing info on other products such as prints.

  The brushe files packed with Our Paint distribustion are licensed with Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0).

My personal opinion is that if that's what they intended, it seems quite reasonable.

satellite2|4 months ago

> there's a built-in assumption that no commercial entity would _want_ to use it under GPLv3 terms.

We also have a fairly strict no GPL dependency at work which I find surprising. Especially for a software like this one that you only use, never ship nor modify I don't understand the risks this license poses. It's like we went from a reasonable "be careful around it" to a "don't touch it with a 10 foot pole". And it's leaving me wondering if there is a more concerted effort to demonize this license

chengdulittlea|4 months ago

To put it simply, I made it that way so

- Other GPL software can just include features in my programs if they wanted to.

- I can remove myself from the responsibilities of potential free maintenance burden if approached by commercial entities.

- On paper it prevent crappy Chinese companies here from taking the code as their own (which is unlikely judging by the nature of this program, but if they want they probably would do it anyway just like the case with ffmpeg).