本项目现阶段为私有项目，但将在不久的未来公开部分源代码。现阶段正在为了开放源代码而进行重构。

本项目将使用什么许可证？

一个基本的想法是，只要愿意尝试使用此项目，哪怕只停留在想一想阶段，都是对原始项目的潜在贡献。我相信，即使是没有对原始项目做出任何反馈和宣传的私有分叉和商业利用，也会在某种意义上对原始项目做出贡献。例如，这些纯粹的闭源分叉至少培养了一名熟知此项目的开发人员。另外，尽管我会为本项目规定一些基本的设计思想，指定一些开发路线图，但我并不反对创造性的滥用与违反原始设计的开发。我知道这可能会导致社区的分裂，甚至会有人开发出比原项目更受欢迎的分支。我不会为此感到难过，相反我愿意相信这是本项目以另一种方式涅槃重生。

我希望任何人都可以在无需经过我同意的情况下使用，分发和修改本项目，无论其是否开源，是否与原始设计思想相冲突。出于这种考量，我倾向于选择更加简单与宽容的许可证。如果说要有什么附加条件，那么首先是需要有免责条款，毕竟不希望因为一个用爱发电的项目锒铛入狱。其次，如果可能的话，希望可以不要用我的名字进行广告宣传。虽然我是此项目的主要开发人员，但是我并不认为此项目全部是我一个人的成果，使用我的名字宣传或许是对其他项目参与者的不尊重， 因此我希望可以避免这种行为。此时我面临的主要抉择是带有附加条款的MIT许可证和3段BSD许可证中的某一个。带有附加条款的MIT许可证尚未被OSI所认同，因此似乎只剩BSD许可证一项选择。但是不知为何，商业公司在使用BSD许可的时候多少会存在一些忌惮，如果可能我还是希望大家可以毫无顾虑地使用此项目。因此我最终放弃了在许可证中包含关于广告宣传方面的限制，选择了MIT协议。而关于广告方面的限制，就让它作为一项没有约束力的君子约定好了。

I believe that anyone who shows interest in this project—even if they just think about using it—is making a potential contribution. In fact, even private forks or commercial use that don’t provide feedback or promote the project can still benefit it in some way. For example, a closed-source fork might at least create a developer who knows the project well.

While I’ve outlined some basic design principles and a roadmap for this project, I’m open to people using it in unexpected or even unconventional ways. I realize this might lead to community splits or even to forks that become more popular than the original. But I’m okay with that. In fact, I’d like to think of it as the project being reborn in a new form.

My goal is to let anyone use, share, or modify this project freely, without needing my permission—whether their work aligns with my original vision or not. That’s why I prefer a simple, permissive license. The only conditions I’d add are, first, a liability disclaimer (because I don’t want legal trouble from a passion project) and, second, a request not to use my name for advertising. Even though I’m the main developer, I don’t see this as solely my work, and using my name might overlook the contributions of others. I’d rather avoid that.

Right now, I’m deciding between a modified MIT License and the BSD 3-Clause License. The modified MIT License hasn’t been approved by the OSI, so the BSD License seems like the better option. Still, I’ve noticed that some companies hesitate to use BSD-licensed projects. I want to make it as easy as possible for anyone to adopt this project. So in the end, I chose the MIT License without any advertising restrictions. Instead, I’ll just make a polite, non-binding request: please don’t use my name for promotions.