11–20 of 41 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? Justin Webb granted the licence, NaturalMotion Limited explicitly didn't. NaturalMotion has a licence and that probably includes their veto on any following licence given by Justin. I'm not a lawyer or particularly strong with English, but at least it makes sense in this interpretation.
That strongly implies it's not open source.
As a lawyer, this licensing is super worrying to me "Copyright (C) 2013-2015 NaturalMotion Limited. Used under licence. Code written by Justin Webb. Licence granted by Justin Webb with the permission of NaturalMotion Limited. No rights are granted by NaturalMotion Limited under this licence. " Uh, so Justin is using it under license from natural motion, and justin has been granted the right to license it, but natural…
Legally speaking you are correct. Practically speaking, I'm not sure it really matters. It seems like this is a project written by one guy to make his job easier, in light of Microsoft's own Android/VS project he made the decision to release this project to open source expecting a decrease in interest over time (Android++ appears to have some benefits over the official project for now, but realistically speaking just…
As a lawyer, this licensing is super worrying to me "Copyright (C) 2013-2015 NaturalMotion Limited. Used under licence. Code written by Justin Webb. Licence granted by Justin Webb with the permission of NaturalMotion Limited. No rights are granted by NaturalMotion Limited under this licence. " Uh, so Justin is using it under license from natural motion, and justin has been granted the right to license it, but natural…
Since you're a lawyer, can they even use the trademarked Android name like that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That strongly implies it's not open source.
More like, it is open source, but it's not free open source?
As a lawyer, this licensing is super worrying to me "Copyright (C) 2013-2015 NaturalMotion Limited. Used under licence. Code written by Justin Webb. Licence granted by Justin Webb with the permission of NaturalMotion Limited. No rights are granted by NaturalMotion Limited under this licence. " Uh, so Justin is using it under license from natural motion, and justin has been granted the right to license it, but natural…
What? Justin Webb granted the licence, NaturalMotion Limited explicitly didn't. NaturalMotion has a licence and that probably includes their veto on any following licence given by Justin. I'm not a lawyer or particularly strong with English, but at least it makes sense in this interpretation.
Except it's used under license from naturalmotion, and naturalmotion owns the code (hence the copyright naturalmotion).
Yet, naturalmotion explicitly grants no rights.
I can state affirmatively this makes no sense :)
As I said, either they've granted rights (through justin), in which case that statement that they grant no rights should not be there (because they are in fact, granting rights) Or they haven't granted rights (through justin), in which case it's not open source and who knows what rights you are getting here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More like, it is open source, but it's not free open source?
The term open source means you have to, at least, have the right to use, modify, and redistribute modifications. It's more than just being able to see the source.
I wish it was for C# instead of C++. I'd like to tinker around with some phone apps, but Monos prices are too high.