Hello contributors to Amulet Core.
We have finally assembled the licence terms for Amulet and want to make you aware of these changes.
The licence terms can be viewed in the files changed section of this pull request.

We are assuming that any contributions made by anyone outside Amulet-Team before signing the Contributor Licence Agreement were made under the terms of the MIT licence.
This means that anyone is able to use and relicense your contributions without having to notify you.
If you have any objections to this please respond below and we will look into removing your contributions.

We will merge this licence on or after 3rd November 2022 to give you a chance to respond if you so wish.

@gentlegiantJGC, @Podshot, @naor2013, @BluCodeGH, @freundTech, @ezfe, @mikelei8291, @lizelive, @architectdrone, @danielchalmers, @MrPingouinMC

While I don't approve of changing the project to a proprietary license, I made my contributions under the MIT license and won't stop anyone from using them in accordance with it (you don't have to remove my contributions, as long as give proper credit in accordance to the MIT license).

Have you thought about dual-licensing like for example QT instead? (GPL or similar for everyone, more rights for the Amulet team).
That would still make the project open source, keep most commercial users away (they are scared of GPL 😉 ), while also allowing the amulet team to use the code under a more permissive license.

Have you thought about dual-licensing

We have considered the GPL but we have invested a lot into the project and did not feel like it gave us enough protection for that investment.

If we stop developing it for some reason I am happy for it to default to the GPL.

It's really unfortunate the team chose a non-standard, custom license that effectively makes this project proprietary.

Not having a standard license such as MIT, BSD or GPL is bad for the project and for the community as a whole:

• This project will not be able to pull code from any copy left GPL project, a large share in Minecraft community, including mine.
• No open-source MIT or BSD project, the vast majority, will be able to pull code from you
• No linux distribution will be allowed to package it
• Contributors will be very hesitant to send code given this status

consider using AGPL. it is a very powerful licence.

consider using AGPL. it is a very powerful licence.

It is, but its intended purpose is for online server software, such as web services, websites, etc. For a standalone software/library such as Amulet, the most suited equivalent license would the GPL (or LGPL for libraries), all of which allow additional clauses, a family which I truly recommended for Amulet

No linux distribution will be allowed to package it

Something like the AUR is fine, but it does mean that no distro can distribute executables.
Seeing as there is currently no licence at all, we technically couldn't before, either...

Have you thought about dual-licensing

We have considered the GPL but we have invested a lot into the project and did not feel like it gave us enough protection for that investment.

If we stop developing it for some reason I am happy for it to default to the GPL.

What is your intended return on investment when it comes to the project?

Have you thought about dual-licensing

We have considered the GPL but we have invested a lot into the project and did not feel like it gave us enough protection for that investment.
If we stop developing it for some reason I am happy for it to default to the GPL.

What is your intended return on investment when it comes to the project?

Money 🤑🤑💰💰