3 ms·

Posting that you don't respect the underlying license really is a great way to look guilty as hell: > This is not true. If it was true, just use the code from

by Latty 6y ago

Posting that you don't respect the underlying license really is a great way to look guilty as hell: > This is not true. If it was true, just use the code from master and make the "small changes" yourself and stop with the spams, simple, isn't it? Completely ignoring that they are stealing other's contributions that were AGPL licensed to use in their proprietary application. Even worse in the now deleted comment where they pull a "we didn't, but if we had it would have been fine", which is pretty obviously the defence of a guilty party. Edit: Now they are claiming that they paid "most" of the other developers who contributed, further underlining the fact that they don't have the copyright for at least some of those code they are using.

alpb 6y ago
Most != all. This is precisely why even if you accept 5 lines of code from someone else (and they're not willing to get compensation from you), you can't change the license of that code. This is what CLAs are for. (IANAL)
- OJFord 6y ago
  Ahh, is that when you need a CLA - when you want to later change licence? I was wondering about this (unrelatedly) earlier - since it's generally only large companies with a spattering of big non-company-owned projects that want CLAs. Does it matter if the change is to a more or less restrictive licence, or just any change?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Arnavion 6y ago
    For most big-company CLAs, when you sign the CLA you either give up copyright of your contribution or you explicitly provide an irrevocable license to the target to use your contribution in any way they want, depending on the precise wording of the CLA. (The latter is more common these days.) In either case, you don't get to complain if your contribution is relicensed later. And no, it doesn't matter what the new license is.
  - tpxl 6y ago
    Basically you can always add more clauses to the license, but you need copyright to take clauses away.

by Latty 6y ago

alpb 6y ago

Most != all. This is precisely why even if you accept 5 lines of code from someone else (and they're not willing to get compensation from you), you can't change the license of that code. This is what CLAs are for. (IANAL)

OJFord 6y ago
Ahh, is that when you need a CLA - when you want to later change licence? I was wondering about this (unrelatedly) earlier - since it's generally only large companies with a spattering of big non-company-owned projects that want CLAs. Does it matter if the change is to a more or less restrictive licence, or just any change?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Arnavion 6y ago
  For most big-company CLAs, when you sign the CLA you either give up copyright of your contribution or you explicitly provide an irrevocable license to the target to use your contribution in any way they want, depending on the precise wording of the CLA. (The latter is more common these days.) In either case, you don't get to complain if your contribution is relicensed later. And no, it doesn't matter what the new license is.
- tpxl 6y ago
  Basically you can always add more clauses to the license, but you need copyright to take clauses away.