license question

[IzzySoft]

May I ask what (FOSS-) license this project falls under? There's no license file in this repo, and the Readme doesn't mention it either. Thanks in advance!

[mikropsoft]

May I ask what (FOSS-) license this project falls under? There's no license file in this repo, and the Readme doesn't mention it either. Thanks in advance!

Since the code in this repository is not entirely my own, I haven't added a specific license. Without owning all the rights to the code, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to apply a license. If you have any specific questions about usage or permissions, feel free to ask.

[mikropsoft]

I am using a template, and just a simple code snippet is enough to apply this hosts file. My goal is to turn it into a module that stays constantly updated.

[IzzySoft]

Thanks @mikropsoft! Background of my question was that I had looked into adding your module to my repo with FOSS Magisk modules (https://apt.izzysoft.de/magisk). As this description states, only FOSS modules get in there – which would require a FOSS license (approved by OSI/FSF).

I of course respect your decision of not adding one. I had a similar situation many years ago with a project of mine, which was originally started by someone else who had given up on it. I didn't feel free to apply any license either then. Luckily in my case, I was able to reach the original dev and they agreed to the license I had chosen – not sure if you might have the same luck, though…

[mikropsoft]

Thanks @mikropsoft! Background of my question was that I had looked into adding your module to my repo with FOSS Magisk modules (https://apt.izzysoft.de/magisk). As this description states, only FOSS modules get in there – which would require a FOSS license (approved by OSI/FSF).

I of course respect your decision of not adding one. I had a similar situation many years ago with a project of mine, which was originally started by someone else who had given up on it. I didn't feel free to apply any license either then. Luckily in my case, I was able to reach the original dev and they agreed to the license I had chosen – not sure if you might have the same luck, though…

Actually, that would be great. Since I don't really understand licensing well, I'm not sure what to do about it. Would it be problematic if I added an MIT license? Because I don't have much knowledge about licenses.

[IzzySoft]

FOSS licenses are going from very permissive (Apache, BSD, MIT) to very restrictive and complex (AGPL). MIT is easy to understand, so are most BSD ones: they have short and compact texts, you get it within 2..3 minutes. But try reading and understanding AGPL 🙈

I'm not a license expert. But yes, for this purpose MIT might be a good match. And it's approved by both, FSF and OSI (see the license list here).

[mikropsoft]

FOSS licenses are going from very permissive (Apache, BSD, MIT) to very restrictive and complex (AGPL). MIT is easy to understand, so are most BSD ones: they have short and compact texts, you get it within 2..3 minutes. But try reading and understanding AGPL 🙈

I'm not a license expert. But yes, for this purpose MIT might be a good match. And it's approved by both, FSF and OSI (see the license list here).

The template uses the GNU General Public License v2.0. I guess using the same license won't be a problem! I will add it shortly.

[mikropsoft]

Added @IzzySoft

[IzzySoft]

Wonderful, thanks! Added your module to the repo then (will go live with the next sync later today):

(in case you wonder about the "only" in GPL-2.0-only: that's as opposed to GPL-2.0-or-later had you specified that. So its meaning is not "he had no better", but "stick to that version of the license" 😉)

That said: this Magisk repo uses your update.json to check for new releases, whenever the update checker runs here, and then pulls what's specified there unless it's already here. Android clients supporting this repo include MRepo and MMRL.