> Our Paint is Developed by Wu Yiming and licensed under GNU GPL v3 or later for individuals.
For commercial licensing, customization and technical support, contact Yiming for details.
Is that allowed under GPL V3 to limit commercial use?
The project is a mix of licenses since it's a mix of components. If I had to guess, they intend source code and maybe the binaries under GPLv3 that they own, fonts under SIL Open Font, but "brushes" and "splash images" under CC_BY_NC, etc. mean they could probably constrain certain uses:
Our Paint is a painting application.
Copyright (C) 2022-2025 Wu Yiming
Learn more about LaGUI: https://ChengduLittleA.com/lagui
Support the development: https://patreon.com/ChengduLittleA
Our Paint is licensed with GNU GPL v3, and Noto fonts are licensed with SIL Open Font license. You should be able to find details about the license in the source code directory.
The splash screen images under Resources are licensed with Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0). You can not use these images commercially, but you are free to contact the author for licensing info on other products such as prints.
The brushe files packed with Our Paint distribustion are licensed with Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0).
My personal opinion is that if that's what they intended, it seems quite reasonable.
> there's a built-in assumption that no commercial entity would _want_ to use it under GPLv3 terms.
We also have a fairly strict no GPL dependency at work which I find surprising. Especially for a software like this one that you only use, never ship nor modify I don't understand the risks this license poses. It's like we went from a reasonable "be careful around it" to a "don't touch it with a 10 foot pole". And it's leaving me wondering if there is a more concerted effort to demonize this license
- Other GPL software can just include features in my programs if they wanted to.
- I can remove myself from the responsibilities of potential free maintenance burden if approached by commercial entities.
- On paper it prevent crappy Chinese companies here from taking the code as their own (which is unlikely judging by the nature of this program, but if they want they probably would do it anyway just like the case with ffmpeg).
Is that allowed under GPL V3 to limit commercial use?