First, thanks for creating such a seamless gallery. It looks and works great.
I noticed that README.md states that the code is licensed under the MIT license. The README.txt file states that it's MIT-licensed, but also links to a page with some additional restrictions. The MIT license states that the software is provided without any restrictions, so I believe there's a conflict between the two. (I am not a lawyer, but this is my understanding)
I completely acknowledge the intent and why it's important, to keep people from reposting it wholesale as their own. Maybe it could instead be licensed under Apache 2.0? That one at least has an attribution requirement.
The reason I ask is that I was hoping to use it as part of a non-commercial open source gallery generator (with attribution to GammaGallery) and it would affect which license I would be able to use.
First, thanks for creating such a seamless gallery. It looks and works great.
I noticed that
README.mdstates that the code is licensed under the MIT license. TheREADME.txtfile states that it's MIT-licensed, but also links to a page with some additional restrictions. The MIT license states that the software is provided without any restrictions, so I believe there's a conflict between the two. (I am not a lawyer, but this is my understanding)I completely acknowledge the intent and why it's important, to keep people from reposting it wholesale as their own. Maybe it could instead be licensed under Apache 2.0? That one at least has an attribution requirement.
The reason I ask is that I was hoping to use it as part of a non-commercial open source gallery generator (with attribution to GammaGallery) and it would affect which license I would be able to use.