Hacker News Reader

Comment by b_shulha | Hacker News Reader

Right, that's a good addition. Thanks.

However, it solves problems the author mentions in his article: you can freely contribute and use the software as you wish, just don't create a competitive company using the recent versions of the sources.

And in 2 years the code becomes true OSS - either MIT or Apache 2.0 (or anything else you want - the FSL itself is pretty short so you can easily adjust it to your needs without spending hours on lawyer consultations).

BTW, the FSL is driven by Sentry, and they have created an org to cover the fair usage licensing: https://fair.io (that's why I have mistyped the FSL name in the original comment).

View on HN

This is the core part of FSL-1.1-Apache-2.0. For MIT it is the same, just the "Grant of Future License" paragraph mentions the corresponding license.

---

License Grant

Subject to your compliance with this License Grant and the Patents, Redistribution and Trademark clauses below, we hereby grant you the right to use, copy, modify, create derivative works, publicly perform, publicly display and redistribute the Software for any Permitted Purpose identified below. Permitted Purpose

A Permitted Purpose is any purpose other than a Competing Use. A Competing Use means making the Software available to others in a commercial product or service that:

    substitutes for the Software;

    substitutes for any other product or service we offer using the Software that exists as of the date we make the Software available; or

    offers the same or substantially similar functionality as the Software.

Permitted Purposes specifically include using the Software:

    for your internal use and access;

    for non-commercial education;

    for non-commercial research; and

    in connection with professional services that you provide to a licensee using the Software in accordance with these Terms and Conditions.

It's worth noting that using the name "Apache" in the license FSL-1.1-Apache-2.0 is opposed by the ASF. That's not to say they're opposed to the license as a whole, but in general, the position of the ASF is that using "Apache" in any other license is not permissible.

https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2459#issueco...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com