3 ms·

> 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 y

> 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here: If the code isn't FSLed and the dev decides to stop distributing source, a fork will have to be made using the outdated source that has previously been released under an open license.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to drop FSL, a fork will have to be made today using the old code, or can be made later using code that's just as out of date.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

> 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.