4 ms·
As far as my understanding goes, when a Repo doesn't have a license, it means that the author reserves all copyrights. Now that the original author added a lic
by jacooper 4y ago
As far as my understanding goes, when a Repo doesn't have a license, it means that the author reserves all copyrights.
Now that the original author added a license, any new commits will be under the AGPLv3, and his old commits(assuming he wants to) will also be relicensed to AGPLv3.
However, the issue lies with other contributors, ones who committed beforehand, these commits will still be "All rights reserved", and you can't relicense that to AGPLv3 without explicit permission.
https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/graphs/contributors https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/grap...
If that's true, then anybody modifying the project can be sued later by the old contributors and the license isn't strictly valid.
- ajvs 4y agoOther contributors submitting their code to a proprietary codebase are giving up their license to the code in favour of the repo's license. The repo owner can do whatever with the code at that point, including choosing to open it as AGPLv3 if they want to.
- jacooper 4y agoWhere does it say they agreed to that? Since there is no CLA, they still own the copyright.