4 ms·

Doesn't the license conflict with itself? The "not-yet-Apache-licensed" code is obviously derived from the "now-Apache-licensed" code, thus it must be "Apache-l

by qznc 3y ago

Doesn't the license conflict with itself? The "not-yet-Apache-licensed" code is obviously derived from the "now-Apache-licensed" code, thus it must be "Apache-licensed" too.

the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
No, but that challenge would exist if it was GPL which is why a hypothetical FSL-GPL would not be possible.
- benj111 3y ago
  No. If I write software I can release it how I want. I can release it as gpl. If someone approaches me wanting a closed source version I can do that. If I submit a patch to the Linux kernel I can also give that patch to Microsoft to put in Windows. The closed code isn't 'based on' Apache code. The copyright holders have released the older code as Apache.
  - the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
    That is true in principle but not how the FSL functions. The FSL ceases to exists at the two year anniversary and turns into another license (eg: Apache 2). If it were to turn into GPL the before and after code pieces would not be compatible. The original author would retain copyright and they alone could make that software available under another license (eg: dual licensing) but nobody else would be in that position.
    - benj111 3y ago
      Yes. I release software X under license that turns to Y license after z years. I am free to take exactly the same code and do the same at a later date. Or are you referring to code by a second submitter where their code goes gpl, but then you need to re get their permission to restart the clock. I still think you could work around that if the license is structured correctly. Treat the source tree as it stands at a point in time as a release that becomes open source 2 years later, but keep the core project closed. So all code in the project is always available to be in the project.
      - the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
        At FSL-GPL artifact would raise very interesting legal questions I don’t want to explore :)
        benj111 3y ago
        I don't think it's that complicated. If I release software under the gpl and to someone to integrate in a closed source application. You don't have gpl code in a closed source application. You have code with 2 licenses. This is perfectly ok, the two pieces of software can coexist. This would be the same, if correctly structured. The only nit would be that code would be forever dual licenced. Some evil company could buy up the code base and do whatever they want and not release code back for 2 years.
        the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
        A today FSL artifact is an amalgamation of Apache/MIT licensed stuff and FSL licensed stuff. This amalgamation would not be possible with GPL per the GPLs license terms.
mananaysiempre 3y ago
Apache 2 is not copyleft: derived works of Apache-licensed software can be distributed under more restrictive terms as long as all the acknowledgments, etc., required by the original are still in place.

by qznc 3y ago

Doesn't the license conflict with itself? The "not-yet-Apache-licensed" code is obviously derived from the "now-Apache-licensed" code, thus it must be "Apache-licensed" too.

the_mitsuhiko 3y ago

No, but that challenge would exist if it was GPL which is why a hypothetical FSL-GPL would not be possible.

benj111 3y ago
No. If I write software I can release it how I want. I can release it as gpl. If someone approaches me wanting a closed source version I can do that. If I submit a patch to the Linux kernel I can also give that patch to Microsoft to put in Windows. The closed code isn't 'based on' Apache code. The copyright holders have released the older code as Apache.
- the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
  That is true in principle but not how the FSL functions. The FSL ceases to exists at the two year anniversary and turns into another license (eg: Apache 2). If it were to turn into GPL the before and after code pieces would not be compatible. The original author would retain copyright and they alone could make that software available under another license (eg: dual licensing) but nobody else would be in that position.
  - benj111 3y ago
    Yes. I release software X under license that turns to Y license after z years. I am free to take exactly the same code and do the same at a later date. Or are you referring to code by a second submitter where their code goes gpl, but then you need to re get their permission to restart the clock. I still think you could work around that if the license is structured correctly. Treat the source tree as it stands at a point in time as a release that becomes open source 2 years later, but keep the core project closed. So all code in the project is always available to be in the project.
    - the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
      At FSL-GPL artifact would raise very interesting legal questions I don’t want to explore :)
      - benj111 3y ago
        I don't think it's that complicated. If I release software under the gpl and to someone to integrate in a closed source application. You don't have gpl code in a closed source application. You have code with 2 licenses. This is perfectly ok, the two pieces of software can coexist. This would be the same, if correctly structured. The only nit would be that code would be forever dual licenced. Some evil company could buy up the code base and do whatever they want and not release code back for 2 years.
        the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
        A today FSL artifact is an amalgamation of Apache/MIT licensed stuff and FSL licensed stuff. This amalgamation would not be possible with GPL per the GPLs license terms.

mananaysiempre 3y ago

Apache 2 is not copyleft: derived works of Apache-licensed software can be distributed under more restrictive terms as long as all the acknowledgments, etc., required by the original are still in place.