Skip to content
Browse files

Make the license revokeable.

  • Loading branch information...
1 parent e78520b commit 1d49db25d5e99d4ea3f9f3d342b68bf7029c38e4 @zedshaw committed Jul 13, 2012
Showing with 8 additions and 2 deletions.
  1. +8 −2 LICENSE
View
10 LICENSE
@@ -14,10 +14,16 @@ and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. Neither the name of Zed A. Shaw may be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
-THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY {{COPYRIGHT HOLDER}} ''AS IS'' AND ANY
+4. Contributors agree that any contributions are owned by the copyright holder
+and that contributors have absolutely no rights to their contributions.
+
+5. The copyright holder reserves the right to revoke this license on anyone who
+uses this copyrighted work at any time for any reason.
+
+THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY ZED A. SHAW ''AS IS'' AND ANY
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
-DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL {{COPYRIGHT HOLDER}} BE LIABLE FOR ANY
+DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL ZED A. SHAW BE LIABLE FOR ANY
DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND

5 comments on commit 1d49db2

@stiletto

JFYI: This change breaks compatibility with GPL.

@jaseg
jaseg commented on 1d49db2 Jun 19, 2013

@stiletto hm, wow. I just noticed this through an email arriving with your comment. I was working on some improvements, but I think I will just leave them in my local tree and find another project worth contributing to.

I don't think this license can even be considered "open source" anymore.

@zedshaw : Please consider re-licensing the project under an actual open source license like BSD or GPL (or put a big, fat warning right into the first line of the README since this license is not exactly standard).

@tino
tino commented on 1d49db2 Jun 19, 2013

Yeah, this kinda sucks. Any particular reason for this?

I really like lamson and planned on starting a new project using lamson after the summer, but this makes it quite hard...

@jaseg
jaseg commented on 1d49db2 Aug 17, 2013

@engelnyst Oh, nice! Thanks for the link!

@zedshaw Please consider dropping the last two clauses in your license. You have written a rather nice piece of software here that could be the basis for a multitude of awesome things.

I do not think this license is benefiting anyone. As an application framework, lamson lives from the people using it. Nobody can use this software in an open source environment though for the fear that the license might be revoked. Since even for a proprietary license the 5th clause is pretty bad, this license is not even fit for commercial use. The only thing this license is good for is killing off your fork of the project, which I assume is not your goal.

@mariocesar

@DoubleMalt open a ticket about the license #34, I can't find an answer from @zedshaw. Anyone has an update to this?

cc: @jaseg @tino @stiletto

Please sign in to comment.
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.