There should be a clause forcing it to remain open source.
Another clause should be that the license must not be changed.
A warrenty and liability disclaimer would be also good. Otherwise a splendid license.
I would 100% use this HPL-v2 for all of my (temporary) foss projects. It's just genius. I mean, good luck keeping track of the current owner, Nintendo lawyers.
I gained so much money from my investment. All thanks to EXPERT ELOISE WILBERT ON INSTAGRAM.. who thought me how make huge profits from my deposit and I gain from 100$ to 600$.. Thank you EXPERT ELOISE WILBERT ON INSTAGRAM contact her now to also get such good luck 📝👍
Ok, I might be misunderstanding here, but since committing changes is allowed for everyone, doesn't this mean fixing bugs is something you could do? You'd just be stuck with all the other rights as well until someone else makes a change.
The main dev made the last commit, so they dont have the right to make another commit, until they arent the last person to make a commit anymore (until someone else has made a commit). This makes sure that there are at least 2 people making commits but hopefully much more.
In other words, making a commit revokes your right to do so until someone else makes a commit.
Am I just bad at reading? It says the right to make changes is granted to everyone one Earth. That would include the last person to make a commit as well, assuming they're a citizen of Earth. I'm sure what you're saying is what it's supposed to say, but it isn't actually what it says.
You can't just ignore the second part of that sentence which gives the right to make commits to all citizens of earth. That would include the person who wrote the last commit.
The fact that you have 38 upvotes with such an incorrect statement is mind boggling.
This is how politics works I supposed. Write something that sounds plausible but is completely incorrect, inaccurate or completely fabricated and stupid people applaud and follow.
A right not being reserved does not mean it is waived, only that it is not exclusive. The last person to commit still has the right to commit, as does everyone else.
Yeah, the problem with the proposition is that you have all rights and access to the code regardless of who made the last commit, unless the last person to commit revoked the HPL.
the fact that there are this many people having different interpretations shows that the license would need waaaaaay clearer wording to hold any sort of water.
this is why i hate licenses like WTFPL and its ilk, just saying "do whatever" cannot possibly be legally viable and thus using anything with such a license is impossible by anyone who cares about copyright law (such as say, companies).
If you want your creations to be free for all to use, just slap a fat CC0 on it.
What happen when the repository is getting forked? Goofing with the license is all haha fun till nasty lawyers get into the picture and you get all sort of liability claims
Ofcourse its legally binding. If you include a license text with your own code on a platform that doesnt have a clause to license your code under different terms, then that license is legally valid.
But writing the license yourself without making sure that it doesnt allow for any legal loopholes is a bad idea.
