Licensing Difference

[jacobot1]

I noticed when I installed the plugin that the EULA in the installer differs greatly from the MIT License which applies to the source code. Is there a reason for this? Is there something in the binary distribution that is not compatible with the MIT License? Just looking for clarity.

[sdatkinson]

The MIT license in this repo is meant to concern the source code; the license in the installer regards the installer and its contents.

If you make something using this source code, feel free to do MIT things. You can use this source code to make your own installer with your own license if you'd like.

However, if someone hands you an installer or e.g. you download an installer from https://www.neuralampmodeler.com/users instead of making it yourself, then follow the terms in its license.

Hope that clarifies.

[jacobot1]

The MIT license in this repo is meant to concern the source code; the license in the installer regards the installer and its contents.

If you make something using this source code, feel free to do MIT things. You can use this source code to make your own installer with your own license if you'd like.

However, if someone hands you an installer or e.g. you download an installer from https://www.neuralampmodeler.com/users instead of making it yourself, then follow the terms in its license.

Hope that clarifies.

I understand that source code, binaries, and installers are not all the same thing and that copyright holders are free to distribute their own software however they like. However, when the source code of software is under an open source license (like MIT) and the official distribution of the software is under a non-open source license, the software is not truly open source as defined by the Open Source Initiative. The MIT license does not require binaries or installers to be open source, but when a project bears the Open Source name, users expect them to be. Again, you as the developer and copyright holder have the right to do as you wish with your software for any reason, and I am thankful for all the work you have put into this awesome project. I was simply curious why the installer and binaries are under a much more restrictive license when the project seems to have the open source spirit.

[sdatkinson]

when the source code of software is under an open source license (like MIT) and the official distribution of the software is under a non-open source license, the software is not truly open source as defined by the Open Source Initiative.

I suppose I don't see where that's implied.

I don't see an installer built from this repo to be an "official distribution". The official distribution is the source code on the release page of this repo.

What I can do is replace the contents of license.rtf with something similar to what iPlug2 does, then fork this to give myself a place to continue building installers for users to benefit from.

But I don't think that the license.rtf in iPlug2's repo being different from the repo license makes that repo not open-source. Or at least I understood that license to be a placeholder to modify; and I expect the license.rtf committed to this repo to be modified those building with this repo. Perhaps that part is where the miscommunication lies? Happy to make this change if so.

[jacobot1]

I don't see an installer built from this repo to be an "official distribution". The official distribution is the source code on the release page of this repo.

The installer is also included as an asset on the Github Releases page.

But I don't think that the license.rtf in iPlug2's repo being different from the repo license makes that repo not open-source. Or at least I understood that license to be a placeholder to modify; and I expect the license.rtf committed to this repo to be modified those building with this repo. Perhaps that part is where the miscommunication lies? Happy to make this change if so.

My suggestions going forward are:

1. Clarify whether you want the EULA displayed by the installer released on this repo's Releases page to be binding as a legal agreement between you and the user upon their installation of the software.
2. If you want the EULA to be binding, don't change it.
3. If you want the EULA to be non-binding but keep it as a placeholder, either:
   a. Keep it in the installer and clarify its non-binding status in the text of license.rtf.
   or
   b. Put it in a separate, unused file (e.g. example_EULA.rtf), and replace the contents of license.rtf with the MIT license you use for the source code.

If the EULA is truly a placeholder to be used by other builds of the software (and doesn't legally apply to the builds on the Releases page), I highly suggest 3a or 3b. That way, users expecting MIT-licensed software don't have to agree to a different license when they install that build.

[sdatkinson]

Feel free to PR me what you'd like to see.