You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 11, 2022. It is now read-only.
I think it might be useful if this hippocratic license could be tagged onto licenses other than BSD, as the question of copyright restrictions is separate from the question of ethical reuse.
I almost wonder if there could be a way of denoting "open source copyright-related license" + hippocratic license, some shorthand notation like -H, for example, BSD-H, or (H), for example, MPL 2.0 (H)?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This is of interest to me as well -- the ability to release software under other licenses, in particular more restrictive copyleft licenses, but with the No Harm clause (and the Services and Enforceability clauses) attached.
in particular more restrictive copyleft licenses, but with the No Harm clause (and the Services and Enforceability clauses) attached.
Yes, absolutely! Off the top of my head, I'm thinking a GPLv3-H with the Freedom 0 dropped. No idea if that is feasible but I can dream 💃. I basically just want to have protection against sublicensing which leads to undesirable usage or privatisation (see #42)
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
I think it might be useful if this hippocratic license could be tagged onto licenses other than BSD, as the question of copyright restrictions is separate from the question of ethical reuse.
I almost wonder if there could be a way of denoting "open source copyright-related license" + hippocratic license, some shorthand notation like
-H
, for example, BSD-H, or(H)
, for example, MPL 2.0 (H)?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: