3 ms·

This is such a niche case it's not really worth talking about, but the original devs still released it under GPL. The FSL is literally just the Apache license i

This is such a niche case it's not really worth talking about, but the original devs still released it under GPL. The FSL is literally just the Apache license in this case. So you aren't arguing for the FSL, just that the original devs should have used Apache instead of GPL. That's just your opinion. If there was a version of the FSL that converted to GPL after two years, you'd have the exact same issue. The FSL portion of the licence is not relevant as no one was ever interested in releasing Xapian under a closed licence for a limited amount of time. This isn't really a rebuttal to my wider point that FSL doesn't do anything you couldn't without it. There's nothing stopping you from just releasing old versions under a different license anyway, and no real reason to commit to doing so specifically for the next two years.

the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
> If there was a version of the FSL that converted to GPL after two years That would not work to begin with, and I already explained elsewhere in this comment thread why. Look, I understand that you do not subscribe to this argument, there is very little I can do to convince you otherwise. I'm coming out of a community that embraces permissive licenses. The FSL plays that tune with a twist that is the exclusivity period. > There's nothing stopping you from just releasing old versions under a different license anyway, and no real reason to commit to doing so specifically for the next two years. There are lots of things that can be done, many other licenses can be forged. But some of these are depending on the goodwill of a future actor. All of this seems worse.
- James_K 3y ago
  > I already explained elsewhere in this comment thread why. Your explanation seemed to be predicated on the idea that you would have to stick to the terms of your own licence. This isn't true. A license only describes what other people can do. As the copyright holder, you can do whatever you want. For instance, you can offer a dual license, or offer different licenses to different people. An FSL-GPL is perfectly feasible. > But some of these are depending on the goodwill of a future actor. The FSL also depends on this. Someone releasing FSL code could easily switch to a different license at some point in the same way that someone who was releasing their past source code could decide to stop doing so. This would result in an almost identical situation in practice. The FSL still offers no difference from just releasing the source voluntarily, because it is just you agreeing to release the source voluntarily.
  - the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
    > This isn't true. A license only describes what other people can do. As the copyright holder, you can do whatever you want. In the future. A copyright holder can’t change the artifact you are already holding. > The FSL also depends on this. Someone releasing FSL code could easily switch to a different license at some point Sure. At which point it no longer is FSL licensed. The code drop of today is fully open source two years from now. Nobody can take that away.
    - James_K 3y ago
      > In the future. A copyright holder can’t change the artifact you are already holding. Yes, but you can literally just copy the GPL into the bottom of the FSL and you have a valid license. > The code drop of today is fully open source two years from now. Nobody can take that away. If you open-source the code-drop from two years ago, no one can take that away. There are two cases here: If the code isn't FSLed and the dev decides to stop distributing source, a fork will have to be made using the outdated source that has previously been released under an open license. If the code is FSLed and the dev decides to drop FSL, a fork will have to be made today using the old code, or can be made later using code that's just as out of date. These aren't substantially different.

the_mitsuhiko 3y ago

> If there was a version of the FSL that converted to GPL after two years That would not work to begin with, and I already explained elsewhere in this comment thread why. Look, I understand that you do not subscribe to this argument, there is very little I can do to convince you otherwise. I'm coming out of a community that embraces permissive licenses. The FSL plays that tune with a twist that is the exclusivity period. > There's nothing stopping you from just releasing old versions under a different license anyway, and no real reason to commit to doing so specifically for the next two years. There are lots of things that can be done, many other licenses can be forged. But some of these are depending on the goodwill of a future actor. All of this seems worse.

James_K 3y ago
> I already explained elsewhere in this comment thread why. Your explanation seemed to be predicated on the idea that you would have to stick to the terms of your own licence. This isn't true. A license only describes what other people can do. As the copyright holder, you can do whatever you want. For instance, you can offer a dual license, or offer different licenses to different people. An FSL-GPL is perfectly feasible. > But some of these are depending on the goodwill of a future actor. The FSL also depends on this. Someone releasing FSL code could easily switch to a different license at some point in the same way that someone who was releasing their past source code could decide to stop doing so. This would result in an almost identical situation in practice. The FSL still offers no difference from just releasing the source voluntarily, because it is just you agreeing to release the source voluntarily.
- the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
  > This isn't true. A license only describes what other people can do. As the copyright holder, you can do whatever you want. In the future. A copyright holder can’t change the artifact you are already holding. > The FSL also depends on this. Someone releasing FSL code could easily switch to a different license at some point Sure. At which point it no longer is FSL licensed. The code drop of today is fully open source two years from now. Nobody can take that away.
  - James_K 3y ago
    > In the future. A copyright holder can’t change the artifact you are already holding. Yes, but you can literally just copy the GPL into the bottom of the FSL and you have a valid license. > The code drop of today is fully open source two years from now. Nobody can take that away. If you open-source the code-drop from two years ago, no one can take that away. There are two cases here: If the code isn't FSLed and the dev decides to stop distributing source, a fork will have to be made using the outdated source that has previously been released under an open license. If the code is FSLed and the dev decides to drop FSL, a fork will have to be made today using the old code, or can be made later using code that's just as out of date. These aren't substantially different.