<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Licensing on libcom.de</title>
		<link>https://www.libcom.de/en/tags/licensing/</link>
		<description>Recent content in Licensing on libcom.de</description>
		<generator>Hugo</generator>
		<language>en-GB</language>
		
		
		
		
			<lastBuildDate>Sun, 09 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		
			<atom:link href="https://www.libcom.de/en/tags/licensing/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
			<item>
				<title>Open source licences: why the fine print decides</title>
				<link>https://www.libcom.de/en/blog/open-source-licenses-explained/</link>
				<pubDate>Sun, 09 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<guid>https://www.libcom.de/en/blog/open-source-licenses-explained/</guid>
				<description>&lt;p&gt;There is a moment that arrives in nearly every sizable project sooner or later. Someone — usually a lawyer or a nervous procurement officer — asks: “What licence should this actually carry?&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Until then everything had gone beautifully. Code written, tests green, repository pushed. And suddenly people are arguing about copyleft, patent clauses and derivative works as if everything depended on it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In a certain sense, everything does.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Licences are not formalities. They are the rules of engagement under which software exists. Whoever ignores them plays anyway — by rules chosen by somebody else.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
