[benatkin]

It’s valid. It’s not the MIT license, but it’s not messed up or confused either. It’s just an unusual license.

It means you don’t have to GPL your own code while your project is non-commercial and you aren’t paying for it. If you decided to make your project comercial you could migrate away from it or pay for it. It also seems to have a loophole if you interpret it a certain way and transfer it, because the person agreeing and the person receiving it under the MIT license would be different people.

[kube-system]

Couldn't someone just download it from some third party mirror and use it under the MIT license?

[benatkin]

Not unless they first removed the other part of the license for this mirror, which to me it seems the MIT license allows you to do. That said, I don't think most want to use open source under a loophole. So such a mirror isn't that likely to take off.

[kube-system]

Yeah, the more common pattern is to simply ignore the license :)

Can't tell you how many developers I run into who presume anything source-available is fair game, install it with their dependency manager, and move on without even reading the license.

Could you imagine if software companies required legal to review every change to `package.json` or `requirements.txt`?

[8n4vidtmkvmk]

Yes, I can imagine. We simply don't install packages. And I'm pretty sure there is a whole review process if you do want to install one. And then it gets checked into the monorepo. It does not get to be randomly updated via a package manager, ever.