If you tap any options in the Hide My Email list, you can then tap Manage Settings to view all the apps and websites that are currently using both Hide My Email and Sign in With Apple. However, if you use the Hide My Email tool via Sign in With Apple, you cannot remove the anonymous email feature without completely removing Sign in With Apple as well. A box will pop up confirming your choice, and letting you know you can reactivate the address from an Inactive Addresses list. To delete one of the email addresses, tap Deactivate Email Address at the bottom. Tap any of the items in the list to see the app, the random address Hide My Email created, where it's getting forwarded to, the label and any notes.Ĥ. You'll see a list of all the addresses you've created with the labels you input.ģ. Go to Settings and tap your name at the top to access your account.Ģ. Mitchell is, and he has an interesting line-by-line explanation of the MIT license which helped clear some of the ambiguity for me. The MIT license is somewhat ambiguous as the definition for "substantial portions of the Software" is not clearly defined, a possible interpretation is that every single file is a substantial portion of the software, this is why some MIT licensed projects include it, in its entirety, in every single source code file. Apache v1 requires the license on every file. Īs you can see, GPL licenses require a copyright notice and a license notice on every file (although no need for the entire license). This stack exchange discussion is somewhat illuminating. Or what if your project mixes in code from other projects for purposes such as dependency vendoring? You need to be explicit in which files are licensed how and by whom. What if a user gets access to source files without access to the rest of the repo? Then they won't be able to know what the license for that code is. The overall principle is that it reduces ambiguity. Necessary or correct? That's a whole 'other can of worms:ĭepending on the open-source license you're using it's actually _required_ to do that, although many developers (like me) don't actually do it because in reality it really doesn't matter, but strictly speaking it's the correct (and sometimes necessary) thing to do. > Is that really common in all open source projects?Ĭommon? Depends. The author should certainly clarify the license terms if they want this to be widely used, but though I wouldn’t use this for MANY reasons, not one of them is fear of having violated the author’s copyrights. ![]() ![]() That declaration effectively does make this “open source” under the plain meaning of that term - the source is openly available, and the author’s clear and openly stated intent is that it is offered as openly available under specific licensure terms - what it probably (or at least properly) is not is “Open Source” per the definition of the OSI. Pretty sure that, legally speaking, an author publicly declaring that a piece of publicly published work is offered as open source, coupled in this case with also indicating (albeit indirectly and not obviously) via the Cargo.toml that the work is specifically licensed under “MIT OR Apache”, is more than sufficient to block them from ever successfully pursuing someone else for damages under their copyright for use consistent with those indicated licenses.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |