3 ms·
100% agreed with you...would be safest for everyone to take this stance going forward. I do think, and I could be wrong, that not everyone realized that the lic
by galenmarchetti 3y ago
100% agreed with you...would be safest for everyone to take this stance going forward. I do think, and I could be wrong, that not everyone realized that the licensing worked this way. Or had their guard up when contributing. I think that's the issue...perhaps their fault, perhaps not, but I see the issue.
I wonder if this will be an example moving forward that people keep in mind when contributing to any OSS project
- elashri 3y agoDoesn't this mean that people will be more cautious and less likely to contribute on the long run? I mean that feels like it is against the spirit of open source movement. And yes I realize that this is idealistic position and the legal aspects gets the upper hand at the end. I just wish things didn't go this way.
- galenmarchetti 3y agoI imagine so...I wonder if its possible to draft an open-source license that commits future versions of the project to be drafted under the same license. Maybe AGPL does this (?) I know AGPL applies to all "modifications", I wonder if that applies to modifications done by the maintainers themselves in the future. If so, maybe we'll see AGPL-like provisions becoming more popular in order to help folks feel more confident
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y agoAny copyleft license should so that so long as there's no CLA / transfer of copyright.