3 ms·

We used to have a CLA for Solvespace (CAD) which is under the GPL3 license. There was some pressure to eliminate it, and some practical reasons as well so we dr

We used to have a CLA for Solvespace (CAD) which is under the GPL3 license. There was some pressure to eliminate it, and some practical reasons as well so we dropped it. Since then, both FreeCAD (assembly 3) and Blender (via CAD sketcher add-on) have been using our constraint solver to great effect. Unfortunately they will probably never be able to tightly integrate it because both those projects are under GPLv2. I suspect we could offer that solver under another that license if those projects really wanted to go with it, but we no longer have a CLA so relicensing or dual licensing is off the table. On a related note, this is why proliferation of FLOSS licenses is bad - it prevents smooth code sharing between projects. Use MIT, BSD, GPL3, or LGPL and call it a day. I'm still not sure how "compatibility" actually works.

regularfry 3y ago
I think I'm right in saying that the FreeCAD integration problem could be solved on the solvespace side by relicensing the solver library as LGPL while retaining the GPL for the solvespace application itself. That keeps the set of licenses within your list, and applies the one intended for libraries to the library component. I'm sure that's been suggested and rejected before though - what's your take?
- phkahler 3y ago
  >> relicensing the solver library as LGPL My take is that's still not possible because we dropped the CLA. In the past it may have been unlikely because the original author offered the solver under paid terms for commercial use and LGPL would allow commercial use without paying. I'm not sure what my own contribution to that part is, but I'd sooner offer GPLv2 as an option over LGPL.
  - regularfry 3y ago
    Got it. That makes sense.
jcelerier 3y ago
Many projects without a CLA could relicense though, e.g. LLVM
coldpie 3y ago
> but we no longer have a CLA so relicensing or dual licensing is off the table. Why is it off the table? Email your contributors and ask if anyone objects. If they object or don't reply, you can probably rewrite the code they contributed, or argue it's too small/trivial to justify a copyright claim. To be blunt, it's extremely unlikely someone is going to sue or even raise a stink over a small contribution. It's more work than if you had a CLA, yeah, but it's not off the table. > On a related note, this is why proliferation of FLOSS licenses is bad. Use MIT, BSD, GPL3, or LGPL and call it a day. 100% agree.
- noname120 3y ago
  VLC did a relicense a few years ago and it required them to contact 300+ contributors (!) and even stalk a few of them IRL in order to get in touch with them. Nobody wants to go through this pain… Part 1: https://jbkempf.com/blog/how-to-properly-relicense-a-large-open-source-project/ https://jbkempf.com/blog/how-to-properly-relicense-a-large-o... Part 2: https://jbkempf.com/blog/how-to-properly-relicense-a-large-open-source-project-part-2/ https://jbkempf.com/blog/how-to-properly-relicense-a-large-o... Part 3: https://jbkempf.com/blog/how-to-properly-relicense-a-large-open-source-project-part-3/ https://jbkempf.com/blog/how-to-properly-relicense-a-large-o...
  - coldpie 3y ago
    In my opinion, they went way above what was required. A lot of that pain was self-inflicted. In all of that work, they didn't have a single person object to the license change. I feel confident saying that there are zero people who meet all of these requirements to cause a real problem: 1) contributed enough code to genuinely have a copyright claim, 2) are still alive, 3) are not easily contactable, and 4) care enough about their contribution to file a legal claim over it. IMO they could have stopped after the emails and a quick look through the remaining unaccounted-for code for any genuinely significant contributions. They didn't need to go hunt down one guy who changed two characters in a comment ("Quite a few people were surprised that I would mail them ('I only wrote one small commit', 'This was minor code').").
- phkahler 3y ago

regularfry 3y ago

I think I'm right in saying that the FreeCAD integration problem could be solved on the solvespace side by relicensing the solver library as LGPL while retaining the GPL for the solvespace application itself. That keeps the set of licenses within your list, and applies the one intended for libraries to the library component. I'm sure that's been suggested and rejected before though - what's your take?

phkahler 3y ago
>> relicensing the solver library as LGPL My take is that's still not possible because we dropped the CLA. In the past it may have been unlikely because the original author offered the solver under paid terms for commercial use and LGPL would allow commercial use without paying. I'm not sure what my own contribution to that part is, but I'd sooner offer GPLv2 as an option over LGPL.
- regularfry 3y ago
  Got it. That makes sense.

jcelerier 3y ago

Many projects without a CLA could relicense though, e.g. LLVM

coldpie 3y ago

> but we no longer have a CLA so relicensing or dual licensing is off the table. Why is it off the table? Email your contributors and ask if anyone objects. If they object or don't reply, you can probably rewrite the code they contributed, or argue it's too small/trivial to justify a copyright claim. To be blunt, it's extremely unlikely someone is going to sue or even raise a stink over a small contribution. It's more work than if you had a CLA, yeah, but it's not off the table. > On a related note, this is why proliferation of FLOSS licenses is bad. Use MIT, BSD, GPL3, or LGPL and call it a day. 100% agree.

noname120 3y ago
VLC did a relicense a few years ago and it required them to contact 300+ contributors (!) and even stalk a few of them IRL in order to get in touch with them. Nobody wants to go through this pain… Part 1: https://jbkempf.com/blog/how-to-properly-relicense-a-large-open-source-project/ https://jbkempf.com/blog/how-to-properly-relicense-a-large-o... Part 2: https://jbkempf.com/blog/how-to-properly-relicense-a-large-open-source-project-part-2/ https://jbkempf.com/blog/how-to-properly-relicense-a-large-o... Part 3: https://jbkempf.com/blog/how-to-properly-relicense-a-large-open-source-project-part-3/ https://jbkempf.com/blog/how-to-properly-relicense-a-large-o...
- coldpie 3y ago
  In my opinion, they went way above what was required. A lot of that pain was self-inflicted. In all of that work, they didn't have a single person object to the license change. I feel confident saying that there are zero people who meet all of these requirements to cause a real problem: 1) contributed enough code to genuinely have a copyright claim, 2) are still alive, 3) are not easily contactable, and 4) care enough about their contribution to file a legal claim over it. IMO they could have stopped after the emails and a quick look through the remaining unaccounted-for code for any genuinely significant contributions. They didn't need to go hunt down one guy who changed two characters in a comment ("Quite a few people were surprised that I would mail them ('I only wrote one small commit', 'This was minor code').").
phkahler 3y ago