3 ms·

I think they can effectively do the same thing if they own the copyright to a significant portion of the work. Here's a thought experiment: Suppose that Mongo

by chubot 6y ago

I think they can effectively do the same thing if they own the copyright to a significant portion of the work. Here's a thought experiment: Suppose that Mongo or Cockroach consists of 80% code for which they own the copyright (written by employees). And it's 20% written by contributors who have NOT signed the CLA. Now can they relicence the whole codebase? No, but I think they can do something with thes same effect by relicensing their parts. I think it's easier to see if they start a new project. Say Mongo starts a new project called "Dumbo". Dumbo consists of 80% Mongo code relicensed. And they simply reuse the contributors' code under the existing open source license. So you distribute both licenses with the code. But now it is still impossible (*) for Amazon or whoever to stand up a cloud service according to the license -- unless they want to rewrite 80% of the code. I'm not a lawyer but that's my understanding of how it works. Interested in contrary (informed) opinions. (*) edit: better to say that it's harder, not impossible. They can fork the old code under the old license. It really depends if the they "understand" the code.

PeterisP 6y ago
If the initial license was GPL or the like, then it would prevent that, as long as they want to include any of the contributors' GPL code, they have to offer the whole package under GPL. MIT-style licenses would generally permit what you describe. Also, they can't "unlicense" previously distributed code - if the system was previously distributed with an open source license, Amazon can use that version as the basis for a "Dumbo-compatible" cloud service without rewriting the 80% of the code as long as they're basing it on the last open release; they would only have to reimplement the new things that "Dumbo" added if they want; Amazon does not have to accept the new license if they don't need the new code and the old code with the old license fits their needs better.
- wrs 6y ago
  And indeed, Amazon forked Elasticsearch from the last open-source version and is continuing independent development.
- athms 6y ago
  >Also, they can't "unlicense" previously distributed code The United States allows authors (and heirs), except work-for-hires, to clawback copyright transfers and terminate licenses after 35 years on works made after 1977. This is an inalienable statutory right, which means it cannot be waived even with a contract. That said, it may be difficult to terminate licenses in practice because open source licensing is done informally in most cases and courts haven't ruled whether this impacts the right of termination. However, copyright assignment and contributor license agreements are subject to termination.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    Okay, the consequences of this paragraph (https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203 https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203) are potentially devastating if triggered, but 35 years is quite a long time in the tech world. It would be very interesting on how such a fork could proceed once the 35 year term (measured from the grant of that licence, essentially the last day the original open source version was distributed) happens if the copyright owner issues the termination letters, but for all the recent licence switches this won't be an issue until 2050s, and in any case the users would have at least two years of warning to switch to something else or possibly make the product compliant by rewriting whatever of the original 35 year old parts are still needed.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- chubot 6y ago
  Yes that matches my understanding. And IMO it's fair for Amazon to continue the development based off an old version. Forking is an important right in open source. Nobody who releases code as open source should expect that their code isn't forked.
ghaff 6y ago
A CLA certainly makes things clearer. But, as is common with legal questions, the answer is some combination of it's not 100% clear and it depends on the particulars. For example, around the time of GPLv3, there was some discussion of whether Linux could be relicensed to GPLv3 if Linus wanted to. (He didn't.) Eben Moglen for one was of the opinion that it probably could be. [1] [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/linux-to-gplv3-a-practical-matter-not-a-legal-one/ https://www.cnet.com/news/linux-to-gplv3-a-practical-matter-...

by chubot 6y ago

PeterisP 6y ago

If the initial license was GPL or the like, then it would prevent that, as long as they want to include any of the contributors' GPL code, they have to offer the whole package under GPL. MIT-style licenses would generally permit what you describe. Also, they can't "unlicense" previously distributed code - if the system was previously distributed with an open source license, Amazon can use that version as the basis for a "Dumbo-compatible" cloud service without rewriting the 80% of the code as long as they're basing it on the last open release; they would only have to reimplement the new things that "Dumbo" added if they want; Amazon does not have to accept the new license if they don't need the new code and the old code with the old license fits their needs better.

wrs 6y ago
And indeed, Amazon forked Elasticsearch from the last open-source version and is continuing independent development.
athms 6y ago
>Also, they can't "unlicense" previously distributed code The United States allows authors (and heirs), except work-for-hires, to clawback copyright transfers and terminate licenses after 35 years on works made after 1977. This is an inalienable statutory right, which means it cannot be waived even with a contract. That said, it may be difficult to terminate licenses in practice because open source licensing is done informally in most cases and courts haven't ruled whether this impacts the right of termination. However, copyright assignment and contributor license agreements are subject to termination.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  Okay, the consequences of this paragraph (https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203 https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#203) are potentially devastating if triggered, but 35 years is quite a long time in the tech world. It would be very interesting on how such a fork could proceed once the 35 year term (measured from the grant of that licence, essentially the last day the original open source version was distributed) happens if the copyright owner issues the termination letters, but for all the recent licence switches this won't be an issue until 2050s, and in any case the users would have at least two years of warning to switch to something else or possibly make the product compliant by rewriting whatever of the original 35 year old parts are still needed.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
chubot 6y ago
Yes that matches my understanding. And IMO it's fair for Amazon to continue the development based off an old version. Forking is an important right in open source. Nobody who releases code as open source should expect that their code isn't forked.

ghaff 6y ago

A CLA certainly makes things clearer. But, as is common with legal questions, the answer is some combination of it's not 100% clear and it depends on the particulars. For example, around the time of GPLv3, there was some discussion of whether Linux could be relicensed to GPLv3 if Linus wanted to. (He didn't.) Eben Moglen for one was of the opinion that it probably could be. [1] [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/linux-to-gplv3-a-practical-matter-not-a-legal-one/ https://www.cnet.com/news/linux-to-gplv3-a-practical-matter-...