Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by sbuttgereit 2474 days ago
Forget for a moment that they don't define what they mean by any of this, what they also do is cloud the license. You called it a license addendum... but I don't believe that it is from my reading... having said that: you can't tell whether you are right or I am clearly.

There's an old saying (that may well be impolitic these days): "you can't be half pregnant". It seems that's what they maintainers are shooting for... I'd urge them to get off the fence one way or the other.
1 comments
partialrecall 2474 days ago
This is the sort of license that effectively says "If you don't really give a damn about licenses, then you're allowed to use this. If you get pedantic about licenses, then you're not."

Similar in principle to AGPLv3 or even WTFPL.

link
sbuttgereit 2474 days ago
Yes if you read the license itself (which I did).

The issue is there's a license section in the README. There they reiterate that they use BSD 3 clause... and then have something that looks like "but...."

Again, as I read it: they're BSD 3 clause licensed and the README is an expression of their own (ill-expressed) hopes rather than a licensing requirement.... but I could see how some could be confused and indeed... maybe they are, too: and that's what would worry me about this statement.

link