<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Licences on remixware.com</title>
    <link>https://remixware.com/tags/licences/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Licences on remixware.com</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://remixware.com/tags/licences/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Remixware Now Checks Rust Crates for Build Scripts and Fixes Licence Misreads</title>
      <link>https://remixware.com/remixware-now-checks-rust-crates-for-build-scripts-and-fixes-licence-misreads/</link>
      <pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://remixware.com/remixware-now-checks-rust-crates-for-build-scripts-and-fixes-licence-misreads/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Remixware 0.5 does two things. It reads licences more carefully, so a licence that asks something of you no longer passes as one that asks less. And the dependency gate now covers Rust, plus the part of a Go dependency that runs on your build machine.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The licence work started from three known misreads. The SIL Open Font License begins its grant with the same words as MIT, so a font under it came out as MIT-0, which asks for nothing. A BSD text whose third clause says &amp;ldquo;may not be used to endorse or promote&amp;rdquo; instead of &amp;ldquo;Neither the name of&amp;rdquo; came out as BSD-2-Clause. And a project with LICENSE-MIT and LICENSE-APACHE was always read as a choice of the two, even when a short LICENSE file said the library is under one and the documentation under the other.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
