Open domdinicola opened 2 years ago
Of course only @nkuttler who created that file 10 years ago can tell you exactly how it is meant. But the content of LICENSE is more or less the same as the three clause BSD license as written here: https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause
which is a well known (if not always clearly defined) Open Source license. See for example https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ModifiedBSD by the FSF which mentions that the license is GPL-compatible.
The differences to https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause are (apart from whitespace changes):
All rights reserved.
, which I think should have no real meaning (but I'm not qualified to specify this)the copyright holder
is replaced with django-debug-cachepanel
for whatever reason (but even interpreting this literally only gives you more rights than less)IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
the word HOLDER
is replaced by OWNER
. I don't think this has any meaning especially as there seem to exist multiple wordings of this part when comparing https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:BSD-3-Clause and https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause.htmlSo personally I don't see any issue calling this a FOSS library that gives one all the freedoms one would expect.
thanks @Findus23 much appreciated!
Lol, seems like I made a sloppy copy and paste job. I'll approve any changes to the license file you want.
Is this supposed to be open source? LICENSE file doesn't indicate that.