3 ms·

That’s how I understood it and that’s radically different than how this HN post got titled. Ben Johnson confirms how you framed it here: https://mobile.twitte

That’s how I understood it and that’s radically different than how this HN post got titled. Ben Johnson confirms how you framed it here: https://mobile.twitter.com/benbjohnson/status/1523748988335263744?cxt=HHwWgMCsibfouKUqAAAA https://mobile.twitter.com/benbjohnson/status/15237489883352...

tptacek 5y ago
We wrote a different title for this blog post, and we did in fact buy Litestream (to the extent that anyone can "buy" a FOSS project, of course).
- apgwoz 4y ago
  > (to the extent that anyone can "buy" a FOSS project, of course). Does this mean that, in addition to offering a salary / options, you provided some sort of additional one-time compensation for copyright assignment?
  - fastball 4y ago
    All the code that has already been written/published already has the FOSS license (in this case APLv2). No take-backsies. So presumably no, there was not a one-time compensation for copyright assignment.
    - apgwoz 4y ago
      > All the code that has already been written/published already has the FOSS license (in this case APLv2). No take-backsies. You do realize that this fact does not entitle you to the copyright of the work, right? It entitles you to use it, modify, redistribute, etc, with continued attribution of the copyright holders. As such, copyright re-assignment is possible for any code that Ben wrote. And, any contributions are probably a grey area of sorts since there was probably no agreement of copyright assignment when contributing as there is in some projects. Any who.
      - fastball 4y ago
        So if I take code that was released with a license like the APLv2, at any point the person that wrote that code can change the license and then sue me for using the code without permission? That doesn't sound right.
        apgwoz 4y ago
        ... That's not at all what this means. 1. I didn't say anything about changing the LICENSE, but it certainly would be possible to change the LICENSE. Typically, you need to get all the copyright holders to agree to it (e.g. all previous contributors), OR, move to a license that ensures all of the previous rights as well (e.g. a compatible license). Additionally, there's a moment when the LICENSE changes. Previous releases would be under the previous license and available indefinitely under those terms (assuming you have the source code at that version). 2. The LICENSE itself has provisions around use of the code. If you fail to adhere to the agreement, then, yes, you could be sued by the copyright holder. Effectively, for APLv2, here is a summary: https://tldrlegal.com/license/apache-license-2.0-%28apache-2.0%29 https://tldrlegal.com/license/apache-license-2.0-%28apache-2... 3. What I did say is changing the _copyright holder_, e.g., the owner. This is the grantor of the LICENSE, who is providing the software / source code (typically gratis, but it doesn't have to be) provided you adhere by the rules stated in the LICENSE. APLv2.0 definitely doesn't give you the right to pretend you wrote the entire thing. In fact, if you redistribute the source code with modifications, the APLv2.0 requires that you include a statement of your significant changes.
        fastball 4y ago
        I know that's not what it means, which is why I was confused when you initially responded with the comment that you did. I guess partly I was confused by the condescending phrasing you used when nothing I said was incorrect. Any who. My point was only – why would fly.io pay an appreciable sum to transfer the copyright of code already written when a FOSS license has already been applied to that code? Clearly that was a connection I was making in my head that I failed to write down in my comment.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

tptacek 5y ago

We wrote a different title for this blog post, and we did in fact buy Litestream (to the extent that anyone can "buy" a FOSS project, of course).

apgwoz 4y ago
> (to the extent that anyone can "buy" a FOSS project, of course). Does this mean that, in addition to offering a salary / options, you provided some sort of additional one-time compensation for copyright assignment?
- fastball 4y ago
  All the code that has already been written/published already has the FOSS license (in this case APLv2). No take-backsies. So presumably no, there was not a one-time compensation for copyright assignment.
  - apgwoz 4y ago
    > All the code that has already been written/published already has the FOSS license (in this case APLv2). No take-backsies. You do realize that this fact does not entitle you to the copyright of the work, right? It entitles you to use it, modify, redistribute, etc, with continued attribution of the copyright holders. As such, copyright re-assignment is possible for any code that Ben wrote. And, any contributions are probably a grey area of sorts since there was probably no agreement of copyright assignment when contributing as there is in some projects. Any who.
    - fastball 4y ago
      So if I take code that was released with a license like the APLv2, at any point the person that wrote that code can change the license and then sue me for using the code without permission? That doesn't sound right.
      - apgwoz 4y ago
        ... That's not at all what this means. 1. I didn't say anything about changing the LICENSE, but it certainly would be possible to change the LICENSE. Typically, you need to get all the copyright holders to agree to it (e.g. all previous contributors), OR, move to a license that ensures all of the previous rights as well (e.g. a compatible license). Additionally, there's a moment when the LICENSE changes. Previous releases would be under the previous license and available indefinitely under those terms (assuming you have the source code at that version). 2. The LICENSE itself has provisions around use of the code. If you fail to adhere to the agreement, then, yes, you could be sued by the copyright holder. Effectively, for APLv2, here is a summary: https://tldrlegal.com/license/apache-license-2.0-%28apache-2.0%29 https://tldrlegal.com/license/apache-license-2.0-%28apache-2... 3. What I did say is changing the _copyright holder_, e.g., the owner. This is the grantor of the LICENSE, who is providing the software / source code (typically gratis, but it doesn't have to be) provided you adhere by the rules stated in the LICENSE. APLv2.0 definitely doesn't give you the right to pretend you wrote the entire thing. In fact, if you redistribute the source code with modifications, the APLv2.0 requires that you include a statement of your significant changes.
        fastball 4y ago
        I know that's not what it means, which is why I was confused when you initially responded with the comment that you did. I guess partly I was confused by the condescending phrasing you used when nothing I said was incorrect. Any who. My point was only – why would fly.io pay an appreciable sum to transfer the copyright of code already written when a FOSS license has already been applied to that code? Clearly that was a connection I was making in my head that I failed to write down in my comment.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]