<?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 VisorCraft News</title><link>https://www.visorcraft.com/news/tags/licensing/</link><description>Recent content in Licensing on VisorCraft News</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-US</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Sep 2026 08:00:00 -0500</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://www.visorcraft.com/news/tags/licensing/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Why We Picked GPL-3.0-only, Not LGPL, Not Dual-License</title><link>https://www.visorcraft.com/news/2026/09/why-we-picked-gpl-3-0-only-not-lgpl-not-dual-license/</link><pubDate>Sat, 19 Sep 2026 08:00:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://www.visorcraft.com/news/2026/09/why-we-picked-gpl-3-0-only-not-lgpl-not-dual-license/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;The LICENSE file goes in with the first commit and then nobody touches it again, which means the most consequential legal decision a project ever makes gets made on day one, usually by whoever created the repo, usually by picking whatever the GitHub dropdown suggested last time. We made that decision once, deliberately, and then stopped remaking it: every VisorCraft app, from Arte Ogre down to the Realistic Mouse Jiggler, ships GPL-3.0-only, and the two alternatives we rejected, LGPL and dual licensing, were rejected for specific reasons rather than out of copyleft enthusiasm, because the license is not a statement of values, it is a machine that does specific things, and we wanted the specific things GPL-3.0 does and none of the things the alternatives do.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>