Re:Project includes a dependancy that has a license that for...
by Macha on Monday August 23, 2021 @07:15AM
(#28274257)
Normally such fact is advertised in the readme, and the github sidebar will recognise and display the title of such a license in the sidebar.
It's commonly understood that open source software may be copyleft.
I think not mentioning a license that says "No use permitted" amongst some instructions on how to use it is deceptive.
> "We didn't know" isn't a very convincing defense.
Good thing "mean", is a matter of subjective perception and not of law, then. Or do you suggest everything legal is automatically good?
Re:Project includes a dependancy that has a license that for...
by DangitBobby on Sunday August 22, 2021 @04:48PM
(#28269463)
Yes. It is misleading to advertise software as Free and Open when it's actually Copy Left.
The "legal print" in this case is five lines long, written in (contrary to most licenses) very plain english, located in the root of the repository, in a file named 'LICENSE.md'. It's not exactly hidden where a reasonable person might overlook it. "We didn't know" isn't a very convincing defense.