LICENSE

[domdinicola]

Is this supposed to be open source? LICENSE file doesn't indicate that.

[Findus23]

Of course only @nkuttler who created that file 10 years ago can tell you exactly how it is meant.
But the content of LICENSE is more or less the same as the three clause BSD license as written here:
https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause

which is a well known (if not always clearly defined) Open Source license. See for example https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ModifiedBSD by the FSF which mentions that the license is GPL-compatible.

The differences to https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause are (apart from whitespace changes):

• added All rights reserved., which I think should have no real meaning (but I'm not qualified to specify this)
• the copyright holder is replaced with django-debug-cachepanel for whatever reason (but even interpreting this literally only gives you more rights than less)
• in IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE the word HOLDER is replaced by OWNER. I don't think this has any meaning especially as there seem to exist multiple wordings of this part when comparing https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:BSD-3-Clause and https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause.html

So personally I don't see any issue calling this a FOSS library that gives one all the freedoms one would expect.

[domdinicola]

thanks @Findus23 much appreciated!

[nkuttler]

Lol, seems like I made a sloppy copy and paste job. I'll approve any changes to the license file you want.