Note that this one isn't open source: https://github.com/sqliteai/sqlite-vector/blob/main/LICENSE....
The announcement says:
> We believe the community could benefit from sqlite-vector, which is why we’ve made it entirely free for open-source projects.
But that's not really how this works. If my open source projects incorporate aspects of this project they're no longer open source!
I guess I'll either stick with sqlite-vec or give turso another look. I'm not fond of the idea of a SQLite fork though.
Do you know if anything else I should take a look at? I know you use a lot of this stuff for your open-source AI/ML stuff. I'd like something I can use on device.
But not for the lack of trying - people keep trying to redefine it...
Apache 2 is just an example here - the same would apply for practically any open source license.
The one place I imagine it could still work is if the open-source project, say a sqlite browser, includes it as an optional plugin. So the project itself stays open-source, but the grant allows using the proprietary plugin with it.
If they depend on software that carries limitations, I can no longer make that promise to my own users.
Or does their extra license term mean I can ship my own project which is the thinnest possible wrapper around theirs but makes it fully open source? That seems unlikely.
In this aggregate form, there is little difference between pseudocode snippets in a post like this one, versus a well-maintained library getting scraped.
The more I think about it, I don’t even really crave credit so much as the feedback loop that tells me whether I’m doing anything useful.
I haven’t solved this contradiction, so I still release under the MIT license.
The parent only talked about ‘open source’, which has a huge overlap with Free Software, but the two still have different formal definitions (not to mention the completely different ideas behind them). This still left the (admittedly unlikely) possibility of the software in question being Free (as in freedom), so I felt it worth pointing out it wasn’t that, either. A common way to talk about software which is explicitly both Free and open-source at the same time is to call it Free and Open-Source Software.
I mean, can you name any licenses that are one or the other but not both?
And I explicitly don't mean whether one of OSI or FSF approved a license when the other rejected it, because sometimes they make that decision based on nitpicks and not because of differences in principles.