4 ms·

I should have thought about GPL when I released the code. But, that boat has sailed. Could they change the license later on if it is initially GPL? I'm thinking

by yolo42 7y ago

I should have thought about GPL when I released the code. But, that boat has sailed. Could they change the license later on if it is initially GPL? I'm thinking about the next project that I'll be doing so that I don't repeat the same mistake.

monocasa 7y ago
For the future, I would totally read Social Architecture. It's available here for free (libre and gratis), and is not long, 100 pages or so printed. https://hintjens.gitbooks.io/social-architecture/content/ https://hintjens.gitbooks.io/social-architecture/content/ A huge part of that is how to structure an open source project so that it can't be taken from the community. Basically a combo of GPL and taking community contributions without having them assign copyright to you is the most full proof way to keep something open source. To answer your question, if they own everything they can relicense it any way they see fit. Only by having your code mixed with others' that you don't own can you practically protect it from forced relicensing.
- mch82 7y ago
  > Basically a combo of GPL and taking community contributions without having them assign copyright to you is the most full proof way to keep something open source. Sorry, but your advice is refuted by research. Both GNU and Apache ask developers to sign contributor licensing agreements. For Apache, see “ASF Contributor Agreements”, https://www.apache.org/licenses/contributor-agreements.html https://www.apache.org/licenses/contributor-agreements.html. For GNU, see “Copyright & Compliance” at https://www.fsf.org/licensing/ https://www.fsf.org/licensing/. The Wikipedia article about Contributor License Agreements cites this article by OSS Watch, http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/cla http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/cla. This is the first time I’ve heard of OSS Watch, but they might be a helpful source of legal advice based on their About page, http://oss-watch.ac.uk/about/ http://oss-watch.ac.uk/about/
  - monocasa 7y ago
    A CLA isn't necessarily a copyright grant. The Apache one for instance doesn't have you assigning copyright to the Apache foundation. It's just signing that you actually own the works in question. I have issues with the GNU assignment. It means that we're reliant on future owners of the GNU project to not ever relicense the codebase. A single owner is a single point of failure.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      I've heard that sort of thing called a developer certificate of origin or something along those lines. The FSF is arguably something a bit unique. But most of the point of a CLA is to give a company/organization ultimate control over a code base so that it can dual license, etc.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    Opinions differ on CLAs. There are certainly arguments for them as laid out in that article. There are also arguments against them in many cases, including that they create friction for new contributors. "Oh, I have to sign this agreement which means talking to my company's legal staff? I think I'll just pass." The parent is also probably right that GPL with no CLA makes it much harder to change a project's license. This actually came up when GPL v3 was released. As it turned out, Linux apparently didn't want to change Linux from a v2 to a v3 license. But there were also legal questions about whether he could do so by himself even had he wanted to. (Though Eben Moglen argued at the time that he maybe possibly could have for various arcane reasons.) ADDED: I recorded a podcast on this and related issues recently: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/open-governance-chris-aniszczyk-linux-foundation/id498373813?i=1000459160604 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/open-governance-chris-...
    - mch82 7y ago
      Thank you for the citation. I’ve added that episode (and the rest) to my listening queue & look forward to your other episodes too. Looks like a cool podcast!
    - 7y ago
- rapnie 7y ago
  Url gives 'Server not found'. Try: https://legacy.gitbook.com/book/hintjens/social-architecture/details https://legacy.gitbook.com/book/hintjens/social-architecture...
mch82 7y ago
The copyright holder can change the go-forward license at any time. The license doesn’t restrict the copyright holder, it restricts everyone else. Your employer isn’t seeking a copy of your Apache 2.0 code, which they already have, they’re seeking transfer of copyright ownership. It really does sound like you’d learn a lot from talking with a lawyer, maybe one recommended by an open source foundation. Lots of lawyers have a first meeting is free policy, so schedule meetings with a few lawyers. Pick the one you like best, or pick none.

by yolo42 7y ago

monocasa 7y ago

For the future, I would totally read Social Architecture. It's available here for free (libre and gratis), and is not long, 100 pages or so printed. https://hintjens.gitbooks.io/social-architecture/content/ https://hintjens.gitbooks.io/social-architecture/content/ A huge part of that is how to structure an open source project so that it can't be taken from the community. Basically a combo of GPL and taking community contributions without having them assign copyright to you is the most full proof way to keep something open source. To answer your question, if they own everything they can relicense it any way they see fit. Only by having your code mixed with others' that you don't own can you practically protect it from forced relicensing.

mch82 7y ago
> Basically a combo of GPL and taking community contributions without having them assign copyright to you is the most full proof way to keep something open source. Sorry, but your advice is refuted by research. Both GNU and Apache ask developers to sign contributor licensing agreements. For Apache, see “ASF Contributor Agreements”, https://www.apache.org/licenses/contributor-agreements.html https://www.apache.org/licenses/contributor-agreements.html. For GNU, see “Copyright & Compliance” at https://www.fsf.org/licensing/ https://www.fsf.org/licensing/. The Wikipedia article about Contributor License Agreements cites this article by OSS Watch, http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/cla http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/cla. This is the first time I’ve heard of OSS Watch, but they might be a helpful source of legal advice based on their About page, http://oss-watch.ac.uk/about/ http://oss-watch.ac.uk/about/
- monocasa 7y ago
  A CLA isn't necessarily a copyright grant. The Apache one for instance doesn't have you assigning copyright to the Apache foundation. It's just signing that you actually own the works in question. I have issues with the GNU assignment. It means that we're reliant on future owners of the GNU project to not ever relicense the codebase. A single owner is a single point of failure.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    I've heard that sort of thing called a developer certificate of origin or something along those lines. The FSF is arguably something a bit unique. But most of the point of a CLA is to give a company/organization ultimate control over a code base so that it can dual license, etc.
- ghaff 7y ago
  Opinions differ on CLAs. There are certainly arguments for them as laid out in that article. There are also arguments against them in many cases, including that they create friction for new contributors. "Oh, I have to sign this agreement which means talking to my company's legal staff? I think I'll just pass." The parent is also probably right that GPL with no CLA makes it much harder to change a project's license. This actually came up when GPL v3 was released. As it turned out, Linux apparently didn't want to change Linux from a v2 to a v3 license. But there were also legal questions about whether he could do so by himself even had he wanted to. (Though Eben Moglen argued at the time that he maybe possibly could have for various arcane reasons.) ADDED: I recorded a podcast on this and related issues recently: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/open-governance-chris-aniszczyk-linux-foundation/id498373813?i=1000459160604 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/open-governance-chris-...
  - mch82 7y ago
    Thank you for the citation. I’ve added that episode (and the rest) to my listening queue & look forward to your other episodes too. Looks like a cool podcast!
  - 7y ago
rapnie 7y ago
Url gives 'Server not found'. Try: https://legacy.gitbook.com/book/hintjens/social-architecture/details https://legacy.gitbook.com/book/hintjens/social-architecture...

mch82 7y ago

The copyright holder can change the go-forward license at any time. The license doesn’t restrict the copyright holder, it restricts everyone else. Your employer isn’t seeking a copy of your Apache 2.0 code, which they already have, they’re seeking transfer of copyright ownership. It really does sound like you’d learn a lot from talking with a lawyer, maybe one recommended by an open source foundation. Lots of lawyers have a first meeting is free policy, so schedule meetings with a few lawyers. Pick the one you like best, or pick none.