3 ms·

Right, that would be "shared source" not "open source" (or _free software_). As it is, nginx is licensed under BSD - that would include the many contributions

Right, that would be "shared source" not "open source" (or _free software_). As it is, nginx is licensed under BSD - that would include the many contributions by anyone else (which cannot be claimed if the original project's copyright is found to belong to someone else) - so if the official nginx goes private but the BSD license is found valid, then the community can continue to publish their own "not-nginx" under BSD. In a worse-case-scenario where copyright of the original nginx project are reassigned and the BSD license annulled, then the community need only replicate something resembling the original codebase that the community's subsequent (and fully legitimately BSD-licensed) patches/changes/commits can be applied to (though this will take some time) - so in either event, the prospective future "owners" of nginx cannot realistically hope to control the world of nginx deployments and the extended nginx developer ecosystem.

lolc 7y ago
> As it is, nginx is licensed under BSD That has just been cast into doubt. > copyright of the original nginx project are reassigned Not reassigned. It would be found to never have been licensed. > need only replicate something resembling the original codebase Which is impossible without it becoming derived of the original. If you want to apply a patch to something it must first look like the original. A good chunk of the patches will have been derived from the original substantially. Which means they'd need to be rewritten too. > the prospective future "owners" of nginx cannot realistically hope to control Yes they could exert a lot of power and force people into paying. A clean-room effort would take a year! In that year they could go after everybody who is distributing old copies. This is as bad as it gets if that company is found to own copyright.
- dragandj 7y ago
  In that case, who would pay the new "owner" for the now unlicensed parts provided by outside contributors? I see this having only two outcomes: either nothing happens (it stays BSD), or it becomes nuclear waste, and new owner cannot sell it because it is plagued by mutually incompatible legal status of different portions of the code. I can't see how the third version, where it stays clean, but the new owner can milk it, is possible.
  - lolc 7y ago
    Well if it becomes toxic waste they could force everybody currently using it into licensing it from them. They could even try and go for damages for previous use.
    - dragandj 7y ago
      But my point it that these customers would not be protected by that license, since they'd be using the code of other contributors without license, so they'd still be potentially open for extortion by hundreds other entities (I suppose there were many contributors).
      - lolc 7y ago
        Hmm yes interesting. Thanks for pointing that out! The other patch authors could retroactively agree with the robber that their derived publications have been without license. Then they too could block usage of Nginx by pledging to go after anybody who gets a license from the robber.

lolc 7y ago

> As it is, nginx is licensed under BSD That has just been cast into doubt. > copyright of the original nginx project are reassigned Not reassigned. It would be found to never have been licensed. > need only replicate something resembling the original codebase Which is impossible without it becoming derived of the original. If you want to apply a patch to something it must first look like the original. A good chunk of the patches will have been derived from the original substantially. Which means they'd need to be rewritten too. > the prospective future "owners" of nginx cannot realistically hope to control Yes they could exert a lot of power and force people into paying. A clean-room effort would take a year! In that year they could go after everybody who is distributing old copies. This is as bad as it gets if that company is found to own copyright.

dragandj 7y ago
In that case, who would pay the new "owner" for the now unlicensed parts provided by outside contributors? I see this having only two outcomes: either nothing happens (it stays BSD), or it becomes nuclear waste, and new owner cannot sell it because it is plagued by mutually incompatible legal status of different portions of the code. I can't see how the third version, where it stays clean, but the new owner can milk it, is possible.
- lolc 7y ago
  Well if it becomes toxic waste they could force everybody currently using it into licensing it from them. They could even try and go for damages for previous use.
  - dragandj 7y ago
    But my point it that these customers would not be protected by that license, since they'd be using the code of other contributors without license, so they'd still be potentially open for extortion by hundreds other entities (I suppose there were many contributors).
    - lolc 7y ago
      Hmm yes interesting. Thanks for pointing that out! The other patch authors could retroactively agree with the robber that their derived publications have been without license. Then they too could block usage of Nginx by pledging to go after anybody who gets a license from the robber.