3 ms·
The irony of someone using Apache license complaining that other people's usage of their code doesn't let them merge changes back is, of course, palpable. That
by FeepingCreature 6y ago
The irony of someone using Apache license complaining that other people's usage of their code doesn't let them merge changes back is, of course, palpable.
That's exactly what the GPL is for!
Someone using Apache complaining about GPL relicenses is saying they're fine with closed-source products making money off their private forks of their code without being forced to contribute it back, but open-source projects doing the same thing is where they draw the line.
- quadrangle 6y agoI agree with your sentiment overall (if you don't want obstacles to merging back downstream code, maybe consider requiring that it keep compatible licensing, i.e. use the GPL, use copyleft). But this sort of contribute-back-upstream is not what the GPL was written for and not how it behaves. The GPL is specifically a pass-it-forward downstream focused license. It is about requiring others to pass on the freedoms. The idea that it has any send-back-upstream requirements is a common misunderstanding that shouldn't be encouraged.
- FeepingCreature 6y agoYes, but by the point your downstream project has changes that you want to merge back, it is the upstream for purposes of GPL sentiment. These roles are transactional, not historic. Otherwise, any company could break the GPL wide open by just morally considering themselves to be the upstream.
- quadrangle 6y agoNot strictly. Downstream GPL users do not need to publish their changes. Businesses and individuals can get GPL software, change it for their own internal use and keep the changes private. GPL's upstream features are incidental and often practical but are not the point of the GPL and more importantly do not describe how it works legally.