News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The Lil License. Parent comment

Re:The Lil License by belorn on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @11:47AM (#15295063)
from the FAQ: "in practice, we need just a little bit more: a declaration of the intent not to use software patents against users, and the shared understanding that contributions back to the project will be incorporated under the same terms of the license."

ISC don't have either of those. If the authors want a patent grant, why should they not be allowed to have that?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Lil License by snakeanus on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @12:00PM (#15295246)
Why not apache2 then?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Lil License by rodorgas on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @04:13PM (#15297778)
FAQ actually recommends it if you want something more robust. Lil is small and simple.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Lil License by slfront on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @03:30PM (#15297384)
Maybe because it's not a great license.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Lil License by radq on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @03:47PM (#15297539)
What are the issues with it? Anything other than the size/complexity?
[ Parent | on HN ]