3 ms·

> The author IMHO can relicense their code to whatever their like. Assume it's true and consider what it can lead to. Person A writes code under GPL. Person B

by avmich 6y ago

> The author IMHO can relicense their code to whatever their like. Assume it's true and consider what it can lead to. Person A writes code under GPL. Person B extends that code significantly, also under GPL. Person A relicenses his code to a closed source. Now person B, of course, is the rightful owner of his own extensions, but they don't make sense without person A's code. So suddenly person B's work greatly decreases in value. I'd assume it's not as simple as just relicensing one's own code; other contributions, depending on that, should be taken into account. Or you can't just relicense.

arghwhat 6y ago
While broken, I suppose this is what would happen: 1. Person A writes project X under GPL 2. Person B extends project X under GPL 3. Person A removes all traces of contributions from project X and releases under non-GPL 4. Person B rightfully continues to use project X under GPL, possibly even hosting a fork and continuing collaboration. (I'm not sure if step 3 is feasible - while person A is free to use their own copyrighted work however they please, it might not be possibly to legally erase all trace of foreign contributions.) --- What normally should happen is that Person A needs to contact all contributors, and have them agree to the relicense their contributions. If all authors agree, then there is no issue. However, step 4 still applies - everyone receiving the code under GPL is free to keep using (and distributing) it under GPL. Only contributions done to the relicensed work will be uniquely protected by the new license.
ajarmst 6y ago
My understanding is that such relicensing rapidly becomes impossible once there are more than a very few significant contributors. Most proponents of Open Source licenses would consider this a feature, not a bug. In any event, this is one of the reasons that maintainers of major projects (including GNU, IIRC) frequently require copyright assignment as a requirement for copyrightable contributions.
- jlgaddis 6y ago
  > Most proponents of Open Source licenses would consider this a feature, ... Indeed ... > ... maintainers of major projects (including GNU, IIRC) frequently require copyright assignment as a requirement for copyrightable contributions. ... and many folks, including myself, refuse to agree to any such agreements. Personally, I'd prefer BSD, MIT, or similar anyways but... if a project is GPL, one of the best ways to ensure that it remains GPL is for individual contributors to retain their copyright on any contributions. Take those paragons of open source, VMware [0] and the "open-vm-tools" [1] project, for example. For a variety of reasons, various components are under different licenses: > The code is being released under GPL v2 and GPL v2 compatible licenses. To be more specific, the Linux kernel modules are being released under the GPL v2, while almost all of the user level components are being released under the LGPL v2.1. The SVGA and mouse drivers have been available under the X11 license for quite some time. There are certain third party components released under BSD style licenses, to which VMware has in some cases contributed, and will continue to distribute with open-vm-tools. Okay, so it sounds like it's all open source and should remain that way so I shouldn't have any concerns about contributing bugfixes, enhancements, patches, etc., right? Wait for it... > Do I need to sign something before making a contribution? > Yes. We have a standard contribution agreement that covers all contributions made to the project. It gives VMware and you joint copyright interests in the code you are contributing. The agreement also gives VMware flexibility with licensing and also helps avoid any copyright/licensing related issues that may arise in the future. There it is. Nice choice of wording, by the way: it gives VMware "flexibility" with licensing and "helps avoid any copyright/licensing related issues". VMware certainly is fond of "flexibility with licensing"' as history has shown. -- Besides all of the other arguments, I think it's completely absurd that an individual should be required to enter into a one-sided legal agreement with a large corporation just to contribute some code -- even just two or three lines -- that they've already written and just want to give away. -- [0]: That's sarcasm, just to be clear! [1]: https://github.com/vmware/open-vm-tools https://github.com/vmware/open-vm-tools
cooltrbl 6y ago
Person A still have the IP of the software IMHO, so person A can do whatever with the software. Person B still have the latest-before-relicensed software, person B can fork or create new software based on latest-before-relicenced software. Similarity like Qt software company doing the relicenced thing and Illumos project keeping latest-before-relicenced software.
- JW_00000 6y ago
  This is not true: person B owns the copyright to his/her contributions. As soon as person B added code, the copyright of the project no longer belonged solely to person A. And that's not a matter of opinion but legal fact. It would however be possible for person A to remove all contributions of person B (and possibly rewrite the same functionality).
Jasper_ 6y ago
If you have released a work under GPL, that work stays under GPL. The term "relicensing" here means that going forward, new new works will be released under new licenses. So version 1 can be GPL, but version 2 can have other terms. We often don't think of new software releases to be independent works, but they kind of are. Nothing can change the fact that version 1 was released under the terms of the GPL, but that does not mean you can use version 2 released under different terms. Edit: this is assuming the maintainer is the primary author of the code. The current guidance from the FSF and other organizations that you need support from the authors of 95% of the work.

by avmich 6y ago

arghwhat 6y ago

While broken, I suppose this is what would happen: 1. Person A writes project X under GPL 2. Person B extends project X under GPL 3. Person A removes all traces of contributions from project X and releases under non-GPL 4. Person B rightfully continues to use project X under GPL, possibly even hosting a fork and continuing collaboration. (I'm not sure if step 3 is feasible - while person A is free to use their own copyrighted work however they please, it might not be possibly to legally erase all trace of foreign contributions.) --- What normally should happen is that Person A needs to contact all contributors, and have them agree to the relicense their contributions. If all authors agree, then there is no issue. However, step 4 still applies - everyone receiving the code under GPL is free to keep using (and distributing) it under GPL. Only contributions done to the relicensed work will be uniquely protected by the new license.

ajarmst 6y ago

My understanding is that such relicensing rapidly becomes impossible once there are more than a very few significant contributors. Most proponents of Open Source licenses would consider this a feature, not a bug. In any event, this is one of the reasons that maintainers of major projects (including GNU, IIRC) frequently require copyright assignment as a requirement for copyrightable contributions.

jlgaddis 6y ago
> Most proponents of Open Source licenses would consider this a feature, ... Indeed ... > ... maintainers of major projects (including GNU, IIRC) frequently require copyright assignment as a requirement for copyrightable contributions. ... and many folks, including myself, refuse to agree to any such agreements. Personally, I'd prefer BSD, MIT, or similar anyways but... if a project is GPL, one of the best ways to ensure that it remains GPL is for individual contributors to retain their copyright on any contributions. Take those paragons of open source, VMware [0] and the "open-vm-tools" [1] project, for example. For a variety of reasons, various components are under different licenses: > The code is being released under GPL v2 and GPL v2 compatible licenses. To be more specific, the Linux kernel modules are being released under the GPL v2, while almost all of the user level components are being released under the LGPL v2.1. The SVGA and mouse drivers have been available under the X11 license for quite some time. There are certain third party components released under BSD style licenses, to which VMware has in some cases contributed, and will continue to distribute with open-vm-tools. Okay, so it sounds like it's all open source and should remain that way so I shouldn't have any concerns about contributing bugfixes, enhancements, patches, etc., right? Wait for it... > Do I need to sign something before making a contribution? > Yes. We have a standard contribution agreement that covers all contributions made to the project. It gives VMware and you joint copyright interests in the code you are contributing. The agreement also gives VMware flexibility with licensing and also helps avoid any copyright/licensing related issues that may arise in the future. There it is. Nice choice of wording, by the way: it gives VMware "flexibility" with licensing and "helps avoid any copyright/licensing related issues". VMware certainly is fond of "flexibility with licensing"' as history has shown. -- Besides all of the other arguments, I think it's completely absurd that an individual should be required to enter into a one-sided legal agreement with a large corporation just to contribute some code -- even just two or three lines -- that they've already written and just want to give away. -- [0]: That's sarcasm, just to be clear! [1]: https://github.com/vmware/open-vm-tools https://github.com/vmware/open-vm-tools

cooltrbl 6y ago

Person A still have the IP of the software IMHO, so person A can do whatever with the software. Person B still have the latest-before-relicensed software, person B can fork or create new software based on latest-before-relicenced software. Similarity like Qt software company doing the relicenced thing and Illumos project keeping latest-before-relicenced software.

JW_00000 6y ago
This is not true: person B owns the copyright to his/her contributions. As soon as person B added code, the copyright of the project no longer belonged solely to person A. And that's not a matter of opinion but legal fact. It would however be possible for person A to remove all contributions of person B (and possibly rewrite the same functionality).

Jasper_ 6y ago

If you have released a work under GPL, that work stays under GPL. The term "relicensing" here means that going forward, new new works will be released under new licenses. So version 1 can be GPL, but version 2 can have other terms. We often don't think of new software releases to be independent works, but they kind of are. Nothing can change the fact that version 1 was released under the terms of the GPL, but that does not mean you can use version 2 released under different terms. Edit: this is assuming the maintainer is the primary author of the code. The current guidance from the FSF and other organizations that you need support from the authors of 95% of the work.