4 ms·
The reasonable answer is also a political fork. The author is entitled to use whatever license they want, and the community is entitled to a fork if it doesn't
by throw_m239339 5y ago
The reasonable answer is also a political fork.
The author is entitled to use whatever license they want, and the community is entitled to a fork if it doesn't violate the previous license. That's all there is to it. the author doesn't owe the community anything, and the community, as long as they respect the terms of the previous license, is free to fork the project and get rid of the new license.
In general, these political stunts eventually reflect badly on their author. Open source is a double edged sword.
- jacobr1 5y agoAlthough one thing the author does owe the community is clarity in the license. The PR in question changed the named of the license from "Apache 2.0" to "Modified Apache." If you change the terms of a well known license, like Apache or MIT or whatever, for whatever reason, you should not mislead others into thinking it is an unmodified licensed.
- antonbabenko 5y agoI have updated the wording in README - https://github.com/terraform-aws-modules/terraform-aws-eks#additional-information-for-users-from-russia-and-belarus https://github.com/terraform-aws-modules/terraform-aws-eks#a... . The project was and will be under the same Apache 2 license.
- jacobr1 5y agoThat makes it clear.