3 ms·

If the software versions prior to the licence change remains open source, and the new licence only affects development going forward, there shouldn't be any iss

If the software versions prior to the licence change remains open source, and the new licence only affects development going forward, there shouldn't be any issue whatsover for users of the open source version. Has there been an instance of a licence change closing off access to previously open source code? (Is that even possible to do when forks are trivially created?)

bmitc 4y ago
Yea, they can keep using the old versions, but that locks them out of the new versions and breaks expectations, especially since they were a member of the .NET Foundation. So it's up to them to keep using a version that won't get fixes or new features or accept the new license. This whole thing just points out how hard all of this is to get right. I understand both sides. But I do at least get the feeling that the ImageSharp team is a bit high strung. https://github.com/dotnet/Microsoft.Maui.Graphics/issues/47 https://github.com/dotnet/Microsoft.Maui.Graphics/issues/47 I think this is probably an intentional move to move away from Microsoft and the .NET Foundation in addition to trying to capitalize on people making a lot of money from the software package. After having looked at the license, it seems reasonable enough to me aside from the technicalities others have brought up. The vvvv tool follows a similar license of, it's free unless you make money from it.
- yyyk 4y ago
  >So it's up to them to keep using a version that won't get fixes or new features or accept the new license. Users can always fork the old version. We can't force the ImageSharp team to maintain software under a licence they don't want. >After having looked at the license, it seems reasonable enough to me aside from the technicalities others have brought up. It's reasonable in theory, in practice I'd rather avoid entangling $WORK with potential liabilities. I prefer more clearcut licences (require payment for all commerical use or don't require at all).
  - bmitc 4y ago
    > I prefer more clearcut licences (require payment for all commerical use or don't require at all). I agree with that. I've always liked the way vvvv communicates their licensing: * https://vvvv.org/blog/vvvv-gamma-licensing https://vvvv.org/blog/vvvv-gamma-licensing * https://www.visualprogramming.net/#Licensing https://www.visualprogramming.net/#Licensing * https://store.vvvv.org/ https://store.vvvv.org/ I've always been curious about how well it works for them.
tremon 4y ago
The copyright holder can always choose to close off access to its copies of previously open source code. They cannot retroactively revoke the license of other people who already have a copy, nor can they prevent its distribution under the original license.

bmitc 4y ago

Yea, they can keep using the old versions, but that locks them out of the new versions and breaks expectations, especially since they were a member of the .NET Foundation. So it's up to them to keep using a version that won't get fixes or new features or accept the new license. This whole thing just points out how hard all of this is to get right. I understand both sides. But I do at least get the feeling that the ImageSharp team is a bit high strung. https://github.com/dotnet/Microsoft.Maui.Graphics/issues/47 https://github.com/dotnet/Microsoft.Maui.Graphics/issues/47 I think this is probably an intentional move to move away from Microsoft and the .NET Foundation in addition to trying to capitalize on people making a lot of money from the software package. After having looked at the license, it seems reasonable enough to me aside from the technicalities others have brought up. The vvvv tool follows a similar license of, it's free unless you make money from it.

yyyk 4y ago
>So it's up to them to keep using a version that won't get fixes or new features or accept the new license. Users can always fork the old version. We can't force the ImageSharp team to maintain software under a licence they don't want. >After having looked at the license, it seems reasonable enough to me aside from the technicalities others have brought up. It's reasonable in theory, in practice I'd rather avoid entangling $WORK with potential liabilities. I prefer more clearcut licences (require payment for all commerical use or don't require at all).
- bmitc 4y ago
  > I prefer more clearcut licences (require payment for all commerical use or don't require at all). I agree with that. I've always liked the way vvvv communicates their licensing: * https://vvvv.org/blog/vvvv-gamma-licensing https://vvvv.org/blog/vvvv-gamma-licensing * https://www.visualprogramming.net/#Licensing https://www.visualprogramming.net/#Licensing * https://store.vvvv.org/ https://store.vvvv.org/ I've always been curious about how well it works for them.

tremon 4y ago

The copyright holder can always choose to close off access to its copies of previously open source code. They cannot retroactively revoke the license of other people who already have a copy, nor can they prevent its distribution under the original license.