Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by caspper69 500 days ago
Rotor was BSD licensed, so I suppose if that’s your definition of a not very open license…
2 comments
tamlin 499 days ago
Rotor had it's own license:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Common_Language_...

I have various snapshots of the Rotor 1 and 2 sources around and they have the SSCLI license. There is a file that contains BSD licensed code (pal\rotor_pal.h).

link
caspper69 499 days ago
Thank you for the follow up. You know after I posted that my thought was am I mistaking their BSD release for a BSD license, and of course I was. The memory isn’t what it used to be.
link
dcrazy 500 days ago
Was it originally BSD-licensed, or did it start out as the MS Public Source License or whatever it was called?

We could go back and check on Codeplex… oh wait.

link
caspper69 499 days ago
As a sibling poster updated it was some bastardized shared source license that never caught on.

Thank goodness MS got over their allergy to open source licenses, as they seem to prefer MIT nowadays for their releases.

My apologies for misremembering the details and being snarky. Humble pie eaten and enjoyed. :)

link
tamlin 497 days ago
No worries, and no humble pie required. Peace, good happiness.
link