Conversation
|
Fixes issue #3 |
|
Since this is not on KA so the KA's MIT licence wouldn't work, I think. |
|
@Phi-001 But look at it, they're suggesting a GNU license instead. Imho, anything is better than nothing though, we'll see what Willard thinks. |
|
Oh, I didn't read. Yeah, better than nothing. |
Yeah, because no license means (legally speaking) all rights are reserved for the author. |
How so? The KA Version still is MIT License. This version could be MIT too. I mean AGPL isn't great but it is better than nothing. GPL would be better though. |
harsha7addanki
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's GNU License But This Is Half On KA So Only Mit License Would Work
|
Not quite. Instead this program would be GPL which doesn't violate MIT License which, isn't a copyleft license. So really the MIT licensed program can be re licensed under GPL or another License assuming that it gives credit to the original program. But, Willard owns the program on both ends so he doesn't need to abide by the MIT License. (I am not a lawyer, but this is the gist of it) |
|
We really need a license for this program. |
harsha7addanki
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If They Say GPL Then Just put A GPL licence
No description provided.