It’s a fantastic bit of software, and I was all set to use it until I noticed that they’re placing (artificially limited) restrictions on the compiled binaries that they’re putting out: Caddy is a high-performance, Apache2 licensed, https-auto http/2 server written in Go. But why create needless forks of projects when a happy medium can be found?Īnother example of slime sourcing is Caddy. It takes some wrangling, but you could take out the checks, add some of the features that aren’t public yourself, and run your own fork of Birdfont. If you answer that you’re using this for commercial means, it informs you to go buy a license, and either makes you quit or answer that you’re not using it for commercial use. It in fact, goes so far as to tell the user that commercial use is prohibited: when you first start Birdfont, it asks you what your intent is. The source is available via GPLv3, but the author intentionally hides the source repository and pushes users to pay money. It’s an astoundingly capable program, but there’s… Some sticky bits to it. Birdfont is a typeface/font editor for Windows, OSX, Linux - the big three - written in Vala.
#README.COMPILATION NTOPNG SOFTWARE#
I first saw this anti-pattern in Free Software over in font-design land with the Birdfont project. Weasel-Wording your way into Commons Clause, e.g. hiding the source code of an open (libre) licensed project, using trademarks, or other means to attempt to curb users from distributing their own compiled binaries or using it in a commercial setting 3. releasing a project under an open (libre) license, but creating restrictions on the use of freely provided binaries 2. A project which satisfies the requirements of being Free Software but which violates the spirit of Free Software.
A project which is under an open (libre) license but which places restrictions on the official compiled binaries or usage in a commercial context through non-licensing means 2.
0 kommentar(er)
