License

[throwaway1037]

License

[hgy29]

I am not a lawyer, and I can’t speak for original authors of Gideros, but MIT/BSD license was their wording. Having read https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/217/what-are-the-essential-differences-between-the-bsd-and-mit-licences and having been a NetBSD contributor, I think the idea was to say: you can do whatever with the product as long as you don’t sue the author and don’t pretend it is yours. BSD 2 clause is Ok, but the third clause is fine too. Apache license would be interesting. I’ll try to reach some of the original authors to settle this.

[hgy29]

Gideros itself is MIT/BSD, but it has several dependencies. Their respective licenses are listed here: https://github.com/gideros/gideros/blob/master/licenses.txt

This basically means that Gideros as a tool should stay open source, but apps made by Gideros can be closed source and sold, except when using desktop export which uses QT and thus is governed by QT license.

[throwaway1037]

"MIT/BSD" is ambiguous.
Does "MIT" mean Expat or the X11 license or some other license?
Which BSD license specifically?
(https://gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html)

[MetalMaxMX]

Hi! Any updates on how that went? Kinda curious on how that was settled

[hgy29]

I didn’t have any reply from the original author, but having a look at other licenses used in code Gideros uses internally, I think the Freetype license sums up the idea.

[MetalMaxMX]

So the engine itself is a combination of BSD with the Freetype license ultimately? Well, both are permissive and they can coexist with each other so I think it's fine