4 ms·

The flip side of that is, you could make an open source product under a license like MIT, then later quietly (A)GPL it and hope a company updates to the newer v

The flip side of that is, you could make an open source product under a license like MIT, then later quietly (A)GPL it and hope a company updates to the newer version without checking the license, because how many people check the license for every single commit they fetch? I don't know what the solution is but I'm guessing courts would consider any evidence of intent when making judgments.

the_pwner224 5y ago
They can still use the older code under the license that it came with (MIT).
- dataflow 5y ago
  That's not the question here. The question here is whether they should be compelled to release any code that they may have happened to distribute along with the GPL'd library that was previously under MIT, which would be what people here are asking for.
- bombcar 5y ago
  What you do is release the new code under GPL with major security fixes and sue if they backport.
bottled_poe 5y ago
This sounds intentionally deceptive and doubt it would hold much weight.
- dataflow 5y ago
  How is it different from a company intentionally using GPL code until they get accused of copyright infringement? Both of them are deceptive, but both seem potentially quite hard to prove as such.
  - bottled_poe 5y ago
    It’s different, because it’s not the same thing. I’m not defending either side here, just saying.. let’s keep the rhetoric out of the debate.
    - dataflow 5y ago
      > It’s different, because it’s not the same thing. I’m not defending either side here, just saying.. let’s keep the rhetoric out of the debate. I'm not sure what you're calling "rhetoric", and I'm not defending either side either. The point of an analogy isn't to give an identical situation, it's to draw a parallel. So far as I can see, it's the flip side of the same issue. I'm not seeing anyone make a compelling case (or really, any case) to the contrary.
    - oasisbob 5y ago
      Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. It's not a flaw in communication which one should try and avoid; rather, it's a very useful set of skills to develop. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/rhetorical_situation/index.html https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/...
heavyset_go 5y ago
> The flip side of that is, you could make an open source product under a license like MIT, then later quietly (A)GPL it and hope a company updates to the newer version without checking the license, because how many people check the license for every single commit they fetch? Part of being a software engineer and developing software professionally is doing your due diligence and making sure that you understand and adhere to the licenses of the software you use and distribute.
- dataflow 5y ago
  The question is what happens when someone is already doing that, but the rug gets pulled out from underneath them unexpectedly (even intentionally). Humans are fallible; mistakes happen even when everyone tried their best to do their due diligence, especially around pitfalls. Claiming that a good software engineer would never fall in this trap is like claiming that a good software engineer would never write a bug.
  - m_mueller 5y ago
    great, now we need to add a license checker CI step...
    - dataflow 5y ago
      Probably a good idea, yeah.
    - gizmo686 5y ago
      Several projects I'm on already have one: https://creadur.apache.org/rat/ https://creadur.apache.org/rat/ Granted, this focused on code within the project, not dependencies.
    - zvr 5y ago
      It's nothing new, and yes, checking licenses is a usual task to have on your CI setup.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
labster 5y ago
A cunning plan! Until they just revert to the MIT licensed version.

the_pwner224 5y ago

They can still use the older code under the license that it came with (MIT).

dataflow 5y ago
That's not the question here. The question here is whether they should be compelled to release any code that they may have happened to distribute along with the GPL'd library that was previously under MIT, which would be what people here are asking for.
bombcar 5y ago
What you do is release the new code under GPL with major security fixes and sue if they backport.

bottled_poe 5y ago

This sounds intentionally deceptive and doubt it would hold much weight.

dataflow 5y ago
How is it different from a company intentionally using GPL code until they get accused of copyright infringement? Both of them are deceptive, but both seem potentially quite hard to prove as such.
- bottled_poe 5y ago
  It’s different, because it’s not the same thing. I’m not defending either side here, just saying.. let’s keep the rhetoric out of the debate.
  - dataflow 5y ago
    > It’s different, because it’s not the same thing. I’m not defending either side here, just saying.. let’s keep the rhetoric out of the debate. I'm not sure what you're calling "rhetoric", and I'm not defending either side either. The point of an analogy isn't to give an identical situation, it's to draw a parallel. So far as I can see, it's the flip side of the same issue. I'm not seeing anyone make a compelling case (or really, any case) to the contrary.
  - oasisbob 5y ago
    Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. It's not a flaw in communication which one should try and avoid; rather, it's a very useful set of skills to develop. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/rhetorical_situation/index.html https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/...

heavyset_go 5y ago

> The flip side of that is, you could make an open source product under a license like MIT, then later quietly (A)GPL it and hope a company updates to the newer version without checking the license, because how many people check the license for every single commit they fetch? Part of being a software engineer and developing software professionally is doing your due diligence and making sure that you understand and adhere to the licenses of the software you use and distribute.

dataflow 5y ago
The question is what happens when someone is already doing that, but the rug gets pulled out from underneath them unexpectedly (even intentionally). Humans are fallible; mistakes happen even when everyone tried their best to do their due diligence, especially around pitfalls. Claiming that a good software engineer would never fall in this trap is like claiming that a good software engineer would never write a bug.
- m_mueller 5y ago
  great, now we need to add a license checker CI step...
  - dataflow 5y ago
    Probably a good idea, yeah.
  - gizmo686 5y ago
    Several projects I'm on already have one: https://creadur.apache.org/rat/ https://creadur.apache.org/rat/ Granted, this focused on code within the project, not dependencies.
  - zvr 5y ago
    It's nothing new, and yes, checking licenses is a usual task to have on your CI setup.
- heavyset_go 5y ago

labster 5y ago

A cunning plan! Until they just revert to the MIT licensed version.