14 ms·

They're all Apache 2, which is about as permissively decoupled from the organization as it gets. Oracle could disappear tomorrow, delete all the repos, or begin

They're all Apache 2, which is about as permissively decoupled from the organization as it gets. Oracle could disappear tomorrow, delete all the repos, or begin charging $5,000/seat for this software, and nothing would happen. You could, literally, fork all three, rename them, and run off on your own projects and have a merry 'ole time. In fact, everyone going after Oracle in this thread should do exactly that right now.

Illniyar 9y ago
You are right in theory, however it's very rare for abandoned or mishandled OSS projects to gain new life by forking. Most of the knowledge, expertise and incentives are tightly coupled with the original creators. Also, open source license doesn't cover patents, so they could decide to sue for patent infringement, which I don't thunk is likely, but if there ever was a company that might try something like that it's oracle.
- jsmthrowaway 9y ago
  > Also, open source license doesn't cover patents http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License_2.0 http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences... The patent assignment and retaliation clause, in Apache 2.0 §3, is one of the key reasons to use it. Your hypothetical would not happen. > however it's very rare for abandoned or mishandled OSS projects to gain new life by forking. Given the counterexamples that have sprung to life from Oracle's behavior in the past (MariaDB, Jenkins), I find this a very odd observation in this thread.
  - Illniyar 9y ago
    didn't realize apache had a patent clause. That's awesome.
    - cyphar 9y ago
      The Apache-2.0 patent clause inspired the GPLv3 patent clause (previously Apache-2.0 was incompatible with GPLv2 because GPLv2 didn't have a patent clause).
    - steveklabnik 9y ago
      This is why MIT/Apache2 dual licensed is popular; Apache2 contains a patent clause, but isn't GPL compatible, so you can use the Apache2 variant if you don't use anything GPL, but use the MIT variant if you have to have compatibility.

Illniyar 9y ago

You are right in theory, however it's very rare for abandoned or mishandled OSS projects to gain new life by forking. Most of the knowledge, expertise and incentives are tightly coupled with the original creators. Also, open source license doesn't cover patents, so they could decide to sue for patent infringement, which I don't thunk is likely, but if there ever was a company that might try something like that it's oracle.

jsmthrowaway 9y ago
> Also, open source license doesn't cover patents http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License_2.0 http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences... The patent assignment and retaliation clause, in Apache 2.0 §3, is one of the key reasons to use it. Your hypothetical would not happen. > however it's very rare for abandoned or mishandled OSS projects to gain new life by forking. Given the counterexamples that have sprung to life from Oracle's behavior in the past (MariaDB, Jenkins), I find this a very odd observation in this thread.
- Illniyar 9y ago
  didn't realize apache had a patent clause. That's awesome.
  - cyphar 9y ago
    The Apache-2.0 patent clause inspired the GPLv3 patent clause (previously Apache-2.0 was incompatible with GPLv2 because GPLv2 didn't have a patent clause).
  - steveklabnik 9y ago
    This is why MIT/Apache2 dual licensed is popular; Apache2 contains a patent clause, but isn't GPL compatible, so you can use the Apache2 variant if you don't use anything GPL, but use the MIT variant if you have to have compatibility.