36 ms·

> The author needs to eat, therefore relicense (I think). In my opinion it's the author who should have been seeking a fork then. Getting the approval of all t

by speps 8y ago

> The author needs to eat, therefore relicense (I think). In my opinion it's the author who should have been seeking a fork then. Getting the approval of all the contributors to do so, knowing that those people won't be able to help anymore. Also, that kind of thing is usually handled by a Pro version or advanced support for paid subscribers.

taneq 8y ago
I took a brief look around the repo and it looks like the author is the sole contributor (at least the few files I looked at had plenty of commits but all by the author). A project being GPL'd doesn't necessarily mean the copyright isn't owned by one party.
- speps 8y ago
  https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/graphs/contributors https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/graphs/contributors He's clearly the top contributor, but not the sole contributor. Sadly, it's why there's more and more projects adopting CLAs. Some that say that all the code you're contributing is owned by the project and not yourself. Allows for future relicensing in some cases.
  - taneq 8y ago
    Huh, thanks for that - I don't really use github and didn't know you could pull up that graph. In that case it looks like most of the other contributors contributed after the CLA was added but there are still a few commits from before that point. Accordingly he should have sought permission from those people before changing the license.
    - agateau 8y ago
      He did. I contributed a few minor fixes and got an email from David asking for permission to re-license.
  - newnewpdro 8y ago
    > Sadly, it's why there's more and more projects adopting CLAs. Some that say that all the code you're contributing is owned by the project and not yourself. Allows for future relicensing in some cases. You're conflating CLA and CTA/CAA, the difference is explained here [1], and it matters. [1] https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/860/what-is-the-difference-between-a-cla-and-a-cta https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/860/what-is-t...

by speps 8y ago

taneq 8y ago

I took a brief look around the repo and it looks like the author is the sole contributor (at least the few files I looked at had plenty of commits but all by the author). A project being GPL'd doesn't necessarily mean the copyright isn't owned by one party.

speps 8y ago
https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/graphs/contributors https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/graphs/contributors He's clearly the top contributor, but not the sole contributor. Sadly, it's why there's more and more projects adopting CLAs. Some that say that all the code you're contributing is owned by the project and not yourself. Allows for future relicensing in some cases.
- taneq 8y ago
  Huh, thanks for that - I don't really use github and didn't know you could pull up that graph. In that case it looks like most of the other contributors contributed after the CLA was added but there are still a few commits from before that point. Accordingly he should have sought permission from those people before changing the license.
  - agateau 8y ago
    He did. I contributed a few minor fixes and got an email from David asking for permission to re-license.
- newnewpdro 8y ago
  > Sadly, it's why there's more and more projects adopting CLAs. Some that say that all the code you're contributing is owned by the project and not yourself. Allows for future relicensing in some cases. You're conflating CLA and CTA/CAA, the difference is explained here [1], and it matters. [1] https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/860/what-is-the-difference-between-a-cla-and-a-cta https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/860/what-is-t...