4 ms·

I don't agree that they are not open source, I only agreed that it is a gray area and even on the previous comment mentioned that it is "pushing the boundaries"

I don't agree that they are not open source, I only agreed that it is a gray area and even on the previous comment mentioned that it is "pushing the boundaries". For eg, I maintain an "awesome-copyfarleft" list: https://github.com/LibreCybernetics/awesome-copyfarleft https://github.com/LibreCybernetics/awesome-copyfarleft > changing from an open-source to a non-open-source license is a significant change which, when done without the consent of the community, is wrong. I don't think consensus is possible and even a 2/3 supermajority on a license change seems out of reach. I can imagine some are pushing for permissive licenses like MIT/BSD, others for GPL/AGPL, others to remain as Apache 2.0, etc.

ddevault 6y ago
>I don't agree that they are not open source Sorry, you are simply wrong on this matter. It's not a subjective issue, it s a statement of fact that these licenses are not open source. There was a recent attempt to change this within the OSI, which badly failed. >I don't think consensus is possible and even a 2/3 supermajority on a license change seems out of reach. I can imagine some are pushing for permissive licenses like MIT/BSD, others for GPL/AGPL, others to remain as Apache 2.0, etc. Correct. That doesn't mean that they can choose to change the license anyway. That means that changing the license is not right in the first place.
- fabianhjr 6y ago
  > That doesn't mean that they can choose to change the license anyway. Under Apache 2.0 and as they did retaining the contributions as Apache 2.0 they can though. As far as I have seen there havent been any legal challenges to the licensing change on this comment section. > That means that changing the license is not right in the first place. This is a non sequitur though, the premise that precedes it (that "they can't change the license (legally or under the terms of Apache 2.0)") is false. > That doesn't mean that they can choose to change the license anyway.
  - ddevault 6y ago
    I have already repeatedly stated that they were within their legal rights, including in one of my replies to you. I assumed this was a given. When I said they "can't", I did not mean "can't (legally do this)", but "can't (do this in good concience)." Do you have anything else to add?

ddevault 6y ago

>I don't agree that they are not open source Sorry, you are simply wrong on this matter. It's not a subjective issue, it s a statement of fact that these licenses are not open source. There was a recent attempt to change this within the OSI, which badly failed. >I don't think consensus is possible and even a 2/3 supermajority on a license change seems out of reach. I can imagine some are pushing for permissive licenses like MIT/BSD, others for GPL/AGPL, others to remain as Apache 2.0, etc. Correct. That doesn't mean that they can choose to change the license anyway. That means that changing the license is not right in the first place.

fabianhjr 6y ago
> That doesn't mean that they can choose to change the license anyway. Under Apache 2.0 and as they did retaining the contributions as Apache 2.0 they can though. As far as I have seen there havent been any legal challenges to the licensing change on this comment section. > That means that changing the license is not right in the first place. This is a non sequitur though, the premise that precedes it (that "they can't change the license (legally or under the terms of Apache 2.0)") is false. > That doesn't mean that they can choose to change the license anyway.
- ddevault 6y ago
  I have already repeatedly stated that they were within their legal rights, including in one of my replies to you. I assumed this was a given. When I said they "can't", I did not mean "can't (legally do this)", but "can't (do this in good concience)." Do you have anything else to add?