-
https://github.com/SixLabors/ImageSharp/discussions/2151#dis...
"The transitive clause is actually really important, I'll explain why.
I've explicitly called out the following to ensure that the Split License is non viral.
Once granted, You must reference the granted license only in all documentation.
In practical terms this means that If you are granted a license, that's the one you're use, not the Split License which exists to derive the license to be granted to you.
So if you're OSS, you should only be concerned about and reference the Apache 2.0 license - downstream consumers shouldn't need to care.
That, on the surface makes the whole transitive/direct thing seem redundant except for the fact we have to use the Split License in NuGet packages, so if someone is looking up their supply chain then they can reference the transitive clause to determine liability (none).
Can it be exploited. Yes, but as I've said elsewhere. "Evil Corp is gonna evil". They're actually more likely to simply ignore the license."
-
SaaSHub
SaaSHub - Software Alternatives and Reviews. SaaSHub helps you find the best software and product alternatives
-
SkiaSharp
SkiaSharp is a cross-platform 2D graphics API for .NET platforms based on Google's Skia Graphics Library. It provides a comprehensive 2D API that can be used across mobile, server and desktop models to render images.
-
IdentityServer
The most flexible and standards-compliant OpenID Connect and OAuth 2.x framework for ASP.NET Core
I think Duende (Identity Server) handled the situation pretty well.
https://duendesoftware.com/products/identityserver
> Standard License Pricing
-
Yea, they can keep using the old versions, but that locks them out of the new versions and breaks expectations, especially since they were a member of the .NET Foundation. So it's up to them to keep using a version that won't get fixes or new features or accept the new license.
This whole thing just points out how hard all of this is to get right. I understand both sides. But I do at least get the feeling that the ImageSharp team is a bit high strung.
https://github.com/dotnet/Microsoft.Maui.Graphics/issues/47
I think this is probably an intentional move to move away from Microsoft and the .NET Foundation in addition to trying to capitalize on people making a lot of money from the software package.
After having looked at the license, it seems reasonable enough to me aside from the technicalities others have brought up. The vvvv tool follows a similar license of, it's free unless you make money from it.
-
Leaving it unmaintained allows for a fork to emerge.
For example, "SlickGrid" https://github.com/mleibman/SlickGrid was popular but hadn't seen an update in many years. Someone else forked and a number of people migrated over to https://github.com/6pac/SlickGrid .
In a world where the original author instead decides to relicense and commercialize, the author suddenly has a different and much more contentious relationship with anyone who tries to keep a community fork.
-
Leaving it unmaintained allows for a fork to emerge.
For example, "SlickGrid" https://github.com/mleibman/SlickGrid was popular but hadn't seen an update in many years. Someone else forked and a number of people migrated over to https://github.com/6pac/SlickGrid .
In a world where the original author instead decides to relicense and commercialize, the author suddenly has a different and much more contentious relationship with anyone who tries to keep a community fork.
