#Multimc microsoft account code#
#Multimc microsoft account license#

The Firefox fork, Pale Moon, did something similar with OpenBSD. Isn't the only project I've seen do it, either. Intentionally making it difficult to remove branding and aggressively responding with 'cease & desist' style language when someone runs afoul of it, instead of just telling them up front that they need to remove branding to be in compliance is a good indication that a dev is either a complete jackass, or is trying to pretend at being 'open source' by getting the benefits of it without having to actually share back in a meaningful way.

#Multimc microsoft account license#

Usually it's by changing the license to a closed one later, risking abandonment and forks, but sometimes they keep the license but try to violate the spirit of it in some way that lets them be 'open' without actually allowing others to use the code. Sometimes people choose an open source license, perhaps without fully realising what they're allowing by doing so, and then later try to walk back the freedom they gave in doing so. That sucks to hear but is not surprising in the slightest, since it sounds precisely like what I'd expect after seeing how the flatpak discussion was handled on the github issue I linked here before. So you can fork, remove all the MultiMC name and icon branding, then upload to whatever repository and you're mostly fine. You can fork it and do whatever, but he wants to to remove the MultiMC name everywhere, and not pretend he approved of the fork. However, it should be abundantly clear that the project is a fork without implying that you have our blessing.

#Multimc microsoft account code#

This means people must take the time to go through the source code and remove all references to 'MultiMC', including but not limited to the project icon and the title of windows, (no MultiMC-fork in the title).Īpache covers reasonable use for the name - a mention of the project's origins in the About dialog and the license is acceptable. Part of the reason for using the Apache license is that we don't want people using the 'MultiMC' name when redistributing the project. We keep MultiMC open source because we think it's important to be able to see the source code for a project like this, and we do so using the Apache license. Forking/Redistributing/Custom builds policy So, from what I've seen his opinion on the use of the code is essentially 'this is mine, you can see the source and contribute code to me, but I do not want you using it to build your own even though the license says you can, and I'll use copyright to stop you if I have to'. (Who is apparently also part of Mojang now, didn't know that.) And this isn't just some random dev, this is Petr Mrázek, the creator of the project. How is that not hostile to someone using open-source code as it is intended?īetween that and the talk about using branding against others releasing it, I fail to see how this isn't someone being actively hostile to the idea.

That was the response to someone building and distributing an Apache-licensed project, which allows precisely that sort of use. They also compared someone using the open-source code to build their own version to being raped:Īnd I see this continuing as hostile action.

But also admitted it would likely have to happen eventually. The person in that thread I linked mentions specifically how they've considered debranding but avoided it to make it harder for others to repackage.