4 ms·
> 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 thou
by 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 agoI 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?