4 ms·

As usual, this is only valid if every contributor has agreed to the relicensing. Otherwise the project maintainers are infringing the copyright of the contribut

As usual, this is only valid if every contributor has agreed to the relicensing. Otherwise the project maintainers are infringing the copyright of the contributors by violating the license granted to them by each contributor. I see this all too frequently. It's scary the legal recourse people open themselves up to by not understanding licensing. That aside, I know very little about these companies involvement in "ICE" and there's no references given. I imagine there are others like me who would like to better understand the situation.

evil-olive 8y ago
> I know very little about these companies involvement in "ICE" and there's no references given. Here's a few sources: Microsoft employees call on company to cancel contract with ICE: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/microsoft-employees-call-on-company-to-cancel-contract-with-ice/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/microsoft-em... Amazon employees demand company cut ties with ICE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/22/amazon-employees-demand-company-cut-ties-with-ice/?utm_term=.71ed66103e0b https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/22... Tech companies quietly work with ICE as border crisis persists: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/tech-companies-quietly-work-ice-border-crisis-continues-n885176 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/tech-companies-quietl... 15 Organizations Doing Business With ICE — and How Much They’re Making: http://time.com/money/5318933/organizations-doing-business-with-ice/ http://time.com/money/5318933/organizations-doing-business-w... If you were inclined to draw a very unfavorable comparison, many otherwise neutral companies did business with Nazi Germany. IBM was contracted to help with the German census, which then lead directly to roundups of Jews and the Holocaust: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/04/hitlers-willing-business-partners/303146/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/04/hitlers...
- Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
  Thanks for taking the time to collate these for me. Very much appreciated.
TD-Linux 8y ago
The MIT license has no restriction on applying additional restrictions, without the permission of the contributors. For example, MIT licensed software can be used in proprietary software.
- Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
  It's not a MIT issue, it's a copyright issue. They're distributing the original contributions under the new license without honouring the terms of the original license. The software isn't now MIT+additional terms, it's MIT and MIT+additional terms. Meaning they need to continue to honour the MIT license for all exisiting contributions, just the same way as we need to when we use MIT licensed software. Namely, printing the license as is, unaltered. They are free to do that then say that future contributions are licensed according to the new license, but the conditions of the contributors' license can't be ignored.
  - jordigh 8y ago
    They're honouring the terms of the original license. The terms of the original license says they're allowed to redistribute however they wish ("including without limitation the rights to [...] sublicense"). They are redistributing with additional restrictions and sublicensing. It's just as valid as grabbing MIT-licensed software making some changes, and licensing those changes under the GPL. Now you can distribute a whole combined work, your changes+the original, under the GPL. Adding restrictions to MIT software doesn't require the agreement of all authors. But anyway, they did get consent from all contributors: there's only three of them: "I have spoken to Sebastian and Daniel about this and we all want Lerna to do the same." If you don't like the idea of adding restrictions, that's exactly what the GPL is for. The MIT license doesn't protect you from this.
    - Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
      I'm not sure I can be any more explicit than my previous comment, but I'll try. You can't just grab a permissive license, like MIT, ignore it, and go, "Hey, this is GPL now." That's entirely incorrect. You cannot ever ignore the terms of a license, just because you want to use another license. You must under all circumstances, honour the terms of the license for which you were granted the right to reproduce someone-else's work. MIT is compatible with GPL. In the sense that it's possible to honour both the terms of the MIT and the GPL simultaneously. You must however, still honour the MIT license in its entirety i.e. Display the MIT license notice in its entirety; it's right there in the license text. Any new project isn't GPL licensed, it's GPL and MIT licensed. People need to understand this. If I grab someone's code off Github that's supposedly GPL, but it includes MIT code; I can't just chose to honour the GPL and ignore the MIT. That's copyright infringement, plain and simple. > But anyway, they did get consent from all contributors: there's only three of them: "I have spoken to Sebastian and Daniel about this and we all want Lerna to do the same." Github lists 169 contributors, not three. We're talking about contributors, not maintainers i.e. We're interested in the authors of the copyrighted works, not some open source nomenclature that has no legal bearing.
xaranke 8y ago
Can those companies continue to use an older version of the software with the earlier license?
- shawn 8y ago
  Yup!
jhanschoo 8y ago
Per my understanding, unless other wise stated, relicensing is still pretty much a fork; versions up to the relicense are still distributable under the old license. In addition, MIT permits forking under a new license.
- jymbo 8y ago
  If you can just do that, can I just be a downstream user, and as long as I have a local license that says, "This is a rolling license fork of lerna" then I can redistribute to said companies?

evil-olive 8y ago

> I know very little about these companies involvement in "ICE" and there's no references given. Here's a few sources: Microsoft employees call on company to cancel contract with ICE: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/microsoft-employees-call-on-company-to-cancel-contract-with-ice/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/microsoft-em... Amazon employees demand company cut ties with ICE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/22/amazon-employees-demand-company-cut-ties-with-ice/?utm_term=.71ed66103e0b https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/06/22... Tech companies quietly work with ICE as border crisis persists: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/tech-companies-quietly-work-ice-border-crisis-continues-n885176 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/tech-companies-quietl... 15 Organizations Doing Business With ICE — and How Much They’re Making: http://time.com/money/5318933/organizations-doing-business-with-ice/ http://time.com/money/5318933/organizations-doing-business-w... If you were inclined to draw a very unfavorable comparison, many otherwise neutral companies did business with Nazi Germany. IBM was contracted to help with the German census, which then lead directly to roundups of Jews and the Holocaust: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/04/hitlers-willing-business-partners/303146/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/04/hitlers...

Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
Thanks for taking the time to collate these for me. Very much appreciated.

TD-Linux 8y ago

The MIT license has no restriction on applying additional restrictions, without the permission of the contributors. For example, MIT licensed software can be used in proprietary software.

Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
It's not a MIT issue, it's a copyright issue. They're distributing the original contributions under the new license without honouring the terms of the original license. The software isn't now MIT+additional terms, it's MIT and MIT+additional terms. Meaning they need to continue to honour the MIT license for all exisiting contributions, just the same way as we need to when we use MIT licensed software. Namely, printing the license as is, unaltered. They are free to do that then say that future contributions are licensed according to the new license, but the conditions of the contributors' license can't be ignored.
- jordigh 8y ago
  They're honouring the terms of the original license. The terms of the original license says they're allowed to redistribute however they wish ("including without limitation the rights to [...] sublicense"). They are redistributing with additional restrictions and sublicensing. It's just as valid as grabbing MIT-licensed software making some changes, and licensing those changes under the GPL. Now you can distribute a whole combined work, your changes+the original, under the GPL. Adding restrictions to MIT software doesn't require the agreement of all authors. But anyway, they did get consent from all contributors: there's only three of them: "I have spoken to Sebastian and Daniel about this and we all want Lerna to do the same." If you don't like the idea of adding restrictions, that's exactly what the GPL is for. The MIT license doesn't protect you from this.
  - Benjamin_Dobell 8y ago
    I'm not sure I can be any more explicit than my previous comment, but I'll try. You can't just grab a permissive license, like MIT, ignore it, and go, "Hey, this is GPL now." That's entirely incorrect. You cannot ever ignore the terms of a license, just because you want to use another license. You must under all circumstances, honour the terms of the license for which you were granted the right to reproduce someone-else's work. MIT is compatible with GPL. In the sense that it's possible to honour both the terms of the MIT and the GPL simultaneously. You must however, still honour the MIT license in its entirety i.e. Display the MIT license notice in its entirety; it's right there in the license text. Any new project isn't GPL licensed, it's GPL and MIT licensed. People need to understand this. If I grab someone's code off Github that's supposedly GPL, but it includes MIT code; I can't just chose to honour the GPL and ignore the MIT. That's copyright infringement, plain and simple. > But anyway, they did get consent from all contributors: there's only three of them: "I have spoken to Sebastian and Daniel about this and we all want Lerna to do the same." Github lists 169 contributors, not three. We're talking about contributors, not maintainers i.e. We're interested in the authors of the copyrighted works, not some open source nomenclature that has no legal bearing.

xaranke 8y ago

Can those companies continue to use an older version of the software with the earlier license?

shawn 8y ago
Yup!

jhanschoo 8y ago

Per my understanding, unless other wise stated, relicensing is still pretty much a fork; versions up to the relicense are still distributable under the old license. In addition, MIT permits forking under a new license.

jymbo 8y ago
If you can just do that, can I just be a downstream user, and as long as I have a local license that says, "This is a rolling license fork of lerna" then I can redistribute to said companies?