They're mixing an open source project and a proprietary project in one
repository. Per their readme, the proprietary components are in an
enterprise subdirectory. It would be more polite of them to use two
repositories, but it's their project there's nothing wrong with this *per
se*.
"NoLicenseMax
Part of the software is released under Apache 2 license, the other part of
the project has a directory with DRM that limit the number of users that
the open source version can access. They use the word "open source" in the
read me file.
https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph#license
Here is th
As James indicates -- the expression "released under dual licences" implies
one project with a choice between two licenses. This seems to be two things
(in a project). Thing1 is open source and Think2 is not. As Kevin said,
Think2 is not open source. Presumably nothing stops you from using
Think1 u
No, usage restrictions are incompatible with the Open Source
Definition. If the software has such restrictions it cannot be called
'open source'.
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 6:49 AM Ahmed Hassan wrote:
>
> Hi All:
>
> I found a software on github that is released under dual licences. Parts of
> the s
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 6:49 AM Ahmed Hassan wrote:
>
> Hi All:
>
> I found a software on github that is released under dual licences. Parts of
> the software is under Apache licence, the other is under proprietary licence.
> The part of the software that's responsible for user access is under
>
Hi All:
I found a software on github that is released under dual licences. Parts of
the software is under Apache licence, the other is under proprietary
licence. The part of the software that's responsible for user access is
under proprietary licence.
Can someone claim a software to be an open so
