|
|
|
|
|
|
by nqzero
2793 days ago
|
|
|
i'm sympathetic to (and in the same boat) as the developers that are considering "licenses" like this one. but i agree with the author that the language being used is fraudulent and the terms are one-sided (hence the quotes). i've made an attempt at coming up with a license that better bridges the gap between open and closed. my goals were: * pay to use the software
* assure developers that they can also monetize their work
* assure users that prices won't change unpredictably https://github.com/db4j/pupl/blob/master/PUPL.md would love any feedback or alternative licenses that capture similar elements |
|
|