4 ms·

The title might be a bit misleading. Released code can't not be open source anymore, only future development.

caiusdurling 3y ago
"no longer" suggests it was, but now isn't, which appears to match reality?
bayindirh 3y ago
> Released code can't not be open source anymore... It can be. You can release under a "source available" license barring it from being used (even compiled), derived, incorporated into other works, making it basically "for eyes only, or we sue you to oblivion". Many people consider licenses as window decorations, but they are not.
- tkfu 3y ago
  Parent poster is saying that the already-released versions, which were released under an open source license, are still open source.
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    Yes you can't retroactively change licenses, but it's also important to know that just because you can read a source file, the file in question is bona-fide open source or free software. Many people lack this knowledge from my experience.
    - bandrami 3y ago
      We had a Windows CE dev license back in the Cambrian Era which included visibility of the source tree, but God help you if you tried to change it and make your own build.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      Solely being able to view source code without other rights absolutely doesn’t make it open source. In general if something isn’t under an open source license it isn’t. ADDED Unless it’s public domain and then it effectively is.
- arlcode 3y ago
  Further distribution can be put under any license they want but any copy anyone received in the past that was Apache 2 licensed remains such and can be used as before. So if anyone wants to put a past release online they are free to do so (unless there are parts of the code that were restricted before). It would be prudent to remove branding where possible but that's mainly a precaution.
- moffkalast 3y ago
  Well licenses are window decorations when it comes to personal use.
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    Well, no. Personal use doesn't free you the obligations GPL brings, for example.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      Assuming you or a company doesn’t redistribute it, copyleft doesn't matter.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
        > doesn’t redistribute it Well sure, but that's a really big caveat.
        ghaff 3y ago
        I would assume personal use doesn’t involve redistribution. Probably true for most company software for internal use as well.
  - CoastalCoder 3y ago
    Does this vary by jurisdiction maybe?
    - ilyt 3y ago
      nope. If something in jurisdiction would make license invalid that would not mean you can do what you want with the code, that would mean that you can't use that license.
      - anticensor 3y ago
        If a jurisdiction releases you but does not prevent you from performing an obligation, licences do not typically consider that a reason for invalidation of the licence.
- mort96 3y ago
  If the code was under a restrictive source-available license, it wasn't open source...
- bjord 3y ago
  I think most people don't consider viewable source projects to be truly open source
bdcravens 3y ago
I think most understand the idea that a project can change its license at any point, but that doesn't apply to previous version. (In this case, any version prior to 5.1.0)

"no longer" suggests it was, but now isn't, which appears to match reality?

> Released code can't not be open source anymore... It can be. You can release under a "source available" license barring it from being used (even compiled), derived, incorporated into other works, making it basically "for eyes only, or we sue you to oblivion". Many people consider licenses as window decorations, but they are not.

tkfu 3y ago
Parent poster is saying that the already-released versions, which were released under an open source license, are still open source.
- bayindirh 3y ago
  Yes you can't retroactively change licenses, but it's also important to know that just because you can read a source file, the file in question is bona-fide open source or free software. Many people lack this knowledge from my experience.
  - bandrami 3y ago
    We had a Windows CE dev license back in the Cambrian Era which included visibility of the source tree, but God help you if you tried to change it and make your own build.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Solely being able to view source code without other rights absolutely doesn’t make it open source. In general if something isn’t under an open source license it isn’t. ADDED Unless it’s public domain and then it effectively is.
arlcode 3y ago
Further distribution can be put under any license they want but any copy anyone received in the past that was Apache 2 licensed remains such and can be used as before. So if anyone wants to put a past release online they are free to do so (unless there are parts of the code that were restricted before). It would be prudent to remove branding where possible but that's mainly a precaution.
moffkalast 3y ago
Well licenses are window decorations when it comes to personal use.
- bayindirh 3y ago
  Well, no. Personal use doesn't free you the obligations GPL brings, for example.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Assuming you or a company doesn’t redistribute it, copyleft doesn't matter.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      > doesn’t redistribute it Well sure, but that's a really big caveat.
      - ghaff 3y ago
        I would assume personal use doesn’t involve redistribution. Probably true for most company software for internal use as well.
- CoastalCoder 3y ago
  Does this vary by jurisdiction maybe?
  - ilyt 3y ago
    nope. If something in jurisdiction would make license invalid that would not mean you can do what you want with the code, that would mean that you can't use that license.
    - anticensor 3y ago
      If a jurisdiction releases you but does not prevent you from performing an obligation, licences do not typically consider that a reason for invalidation of the licence.
mort96 3y ago
If the code was under a restrictive source-available license, it wasn't open source...
bjord 3y ago
I think most people don't consider viewable source projects to be truly open source

bdcravens 3y ago

I think most understand the idea that a project can change its license at any point, but that doesn't apply to previous version. (In this case, any version prior to 5.1.0)