So there is no misunderstanding -- I deleted the prior post. I will relate whatever the lawyer I ask has to say about this.
On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 7:11:36 PM UTC-5, Jeffrey Sarnoff wrote: > > Well, maybe maybe not -- irrelevant, though. I was not advocating its use, > just relating something. > As I said, this is a legal question. I am going to ask an intellectual > property lawyer. > > On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 7:04:06 PM UTC-5, Steven G. Johnson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 6:17:14 PM UTC-5, Jeffrey Sarnoff wrote: >>> >>> The question is a legal question. This is* not* legal advice. >>> >>> I have not done this with any Julia code. I did do something similar >>> some years ago with other source code. >>> Understanding that permission may be contingent on an agreement to pay >>> money, the gist of it was: >>> >>> LICENCE: >>> For strictly non-commercial use, including education and research, the >>> MIT licence applies. >>> >> >> This is incoherent — the MIT license does not limit licensees to >> non-commercial use. Effecitively, you are trying to use MIT license + an >> additional restriction (or minus some permissions), but written in a very >> confusing way. You are basically saying: "you can do anything with this >> code [MIT license], except that you can't." >> >> The general advice from most sources is: don't write your own license; >> the odds are high that you will mess up and say something whose effects are >> not what you intend. >> >
