💬 Discussion | Dual Licensing #996
Labels
No Label
🔍🤖 Search Engines
approved
dependencies
duplicate
feedback wanted
high priority
I2P
iOS
low priority
OS
Self-contained networks
Social media
stale
streaming
todo
Tor
WIP
wontfix
XMPP
[m]
₿ cryptocurrency
ℹ️ help wanted
↔️ file sharing
⚙️ web extensions
✨ enhancement
❌ software removal
💬 discussion
🤖 Android
🐛 bug
💢 conflicting
📝 correction
🆘 critical
📧 email
🔒 file encryption
📁 file storage
🦊 Firefox
💻 hardware
🌐 hosting
🏠 housekeeping
🔐 password managers
🧰 productivity tools
🔎 research required
🌐 Social News Aggregators
🆕 software suggestion
👥 team chat
🔒 VPN
🌐 website issue
🚫 Windows
👁️ browsers
🖊️ digital notebooks
🗄️ DNS
🗨️ instant messaging (im)
🇦🇶 translations
No Milestone
No Assignees
1 Participants
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: privacyguides/privacytools.io#996
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
I wanted to start a discussion about the possibility of dual licensing privacytools.io
The current CC0 contains much unnecessary legal lingo and can be confusing.
Although, under some circumstances this may be useful.
My recommendation is to dual license under a simpler license such as the Unlicense.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlicense#Reception sounds like CC0 might be a better choice even if it's more legalese.
Duplicate or discussed previously at least in https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/957 https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/956 https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/955
@Mikaela This is not a duplicate.
#957 #956 and #955 are about separate licenses.
I propose the idea of using multi-licensing, which doesn't seem to have been discussed before.
@ghbjklhv What benefit do you see coming from multi licensing as CC0 and something that almost everyone else opposes? Especially considering how CC0 is public domain even if your legislation didn't happen to understand public domain and thus allows you to do anything you want with it.