Reading through the complete licensing terms... even to this non-lawyer, the author(s) don't seem to understand licensing.
So there's the CoronaVirus License, thingy....
A little further down the page...
"PlantUML is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version. "
OK... so that's contradictory.... there's no "or" in picking a license and terms of one license are, in principal and spirit, antagonistic to the terms of the other.
And then there's a very confusing bit about image ownership...
That wipes this UML tool off my candidate tools list.
4 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 23.6 ms ] threadReading through the complete licensing terms... even to this non-lawyer, the author(s) don't seem to understand licensing.
So there's the CoronaVirus License, thingy....
A little further down the page... "PlantUML is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. "
OK... so that's contradictory.... there's no "or" in picking a license and terms of one license are, in principal and spirit, antagonistic to the terms of the other.
And then there's a very confusing bit about image ownership...
That wipes this UML tool off my candidate tools list.
As an individual user, I have no issue with the license.
As a consultant, I am making sure my clients are aware of this very strange update.
I would urge the author to please consider offering a plain OSI-approved license, at the risk of losing considerable adoption.
https://forum.plantuml.net/11018/will-you-reconsider-the-cor...