Updated LICENSE 2 weeks ago added appendix to Apache License 2.0. See below for the full quote:
Appendix:
In case of a conflict, the terms of this appendix supersede the general apache license.
- Unless provided with a written agreement, the paid features of CapRover (as a service) cannot be modified.
- Unless provided with a written agreement, no persons are permitted to redistribute another paid version of CapRover.
- Furthermore, any modifications of free features of CapRover should be distributed as free & opensource software.
If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to us.
For terms and conditions of the software and the service, please see TERMS_AND_CONDITIONS.md
Look, switching to "source available" is fine. But for the love of c'thulu, please don't create a new, bastardized "franken-license" by adding an "appendix" to a known license. NOBODY knows what the actual meaning of the new creation is, including users, the developers, potential users, etc.
It would be much, much, much better to just change licenses to one of the many existing, well understood, well accepted, "source available" licenses that already exist.
3 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 19.3 ms ] threadAppendix: In case of a conflict, the terms of this appendix supersede the general apache license.
- Unless provided with a written agreement, the paid features of CapRover (as a service) cannot be modified. - Unless provided with a written agreement, no persons are permitted to redistribute another paid version of CapRover. - Furthermore, any modifications of free features of CapRover should be distributed as free & opensource software.
If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to us.
For terms and conditions of the software and the service, please see TERMS_AND_CONDITIONS.md
Look, switching to "source available" is fine. But for the love of c'thulu, please don't create a new, bastardized "franken-license" by adding an "appendix" to a known license. NOBODY knows what the actual meaning of the new creation is, including users, the developers, potential users, etc.
It would be much, much, much better to just change licenses to one of the many existing, well understood, well accepted, "source available" licenses that already exist.