4 ms·
You can put it under proprietary reciprocal terms and void the right to copy when history is damaged. Copyright should cover that. You can't do this with lax p
by hakre 5y ago
You can put it under proprietary reciprocal terms and void the right to copy when history is damaged. Copyright should cover that.
You can't do this with lax permissive licenses nor with copyleft as they allow to modify the work, which would mean the right to modify the history.
- ghoward 5y agoThose are good points. Is there any way to have an open source license that protects history?
- hakre 5y agoNone that I can think of. History of projects is by the people who do/participate. If you want to remove the right to modify the project (which includes the history if shared as common on Github) it is not open source (free/libre) software any longer. In this case such a license wouldn't be needed either honestly. There would be no win with it, b/c it would have been similarly easily violated and that's it. Don't hope for a strong "legal" thing here, it won't help to solve these kind of problems (IMHO). And for the license troll: Instead declare the repository on Github as Database Work. Put it under a proprietary license. Github _might_ falsely read a license from a software stored in that database as the database's license, but you can easily leave an "all rights reserved" in the project description that is more prominently visible than that.