Free for personal/noncom/oss, contact for commercial. So probably not.
IMO, this will have to offer super tremendous advantages over MSBuild to have any chance at gaining traction. The latter is free, open source, easy to extend, already fits with ci/cd and is the native build tool for the platform.
I don't think it'd be too hard to make a build tool as much better than msbuild as intellij is better than eclipse.
This whole topic nearly triggered a rant about how badly broken most build is, and how massively it smashes you out of your flow to have an irritating build problem show up. Build problems impact the productivity of every member of your team.
Bud will always be free for open source projects.
I postponed the whole licencing and open-sourcing business because I would like to determine what would suit Bud the best.
Maybe something like the GPL licence with an additional clause that projects built with bud must be open-sourced too. And perhaps dual-licenced for proprietary cases (something like qt).
Anyways, any feedback on this is topic would be very welcome!
Thanks a bunch!
Would this be enforceable, though?
The primary reason why it would be enforceable is that you need a license to run a program (copying to ram, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDY_Industries,_LLC_v._Blizzar...). A build program's license could thus include any type of conditions which dictate terms for usage, including what kind of license that project has.
The only limits are those inherent to copyright itself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitations_and_exceptions_to_...), and consumer protection laws. Consumer protection law would be the best guess as to limit what kind of conditions a product has after sale, but so far most legal system has chosen not to do so, and it get even more complex area when the product is given away for free.