4 ms·

I wonder if there's anything like a "rug-pull-proof" licensing/development model. Even AGPL is not a guarantee, if a single entity owns the copyright to the ent

I wonder if there's anything like a "rug-pull-proof" licensing/development model. Even AGPL is not a guarantee, if a single entity owns the copyright to the entire project (through CLAs), and decides to switch to BSL, and has enough influence to make forks irrelevant. I think Linux's model is the strongest: individual contributors retain copyright, and there are enough individual copyright holders to make relicensing insanely difficult. Coupled with the project's pace (and the pace at which they change the internal APIs) it basically provides such a guarantee. Most projects however are less successful and the users/downstream developers can't count on momentum as the safeguard.

iudqnolq 3y ago
A project could always be abandoned, there's no way to guarantee perpetual labor on your behalf.
- falcor84 3y ago
  What does this have to do with the preceding argument? Yes, the company could abandon the project, but the concern here is about them taking all the previous work (including volunteer contributions) and proceeding with a more restrictive commercial license; that's what we want to prevent.
  - asalahli 3y ago
    > the concern here is about them taking all the previous work Not unless they retroactively change the license on said previous work, which I'm pretty sure they cannot.
    - falcor84 3y ago
      I haven't looked into GameMaker's license specifically, but many projects require a copyright assignment as part of their contributor license agreement.
      - zem 3y ago
        that allows relicensing of the combined work moving forward, not retroactive relicensing of already released code.
        falcor84 3y ago
        That's indeed what I meant, apologies if I was unclear.
- rollcat 3y ago
  The concern is not about free labor, the concern is that the product I'm building might get killed by vendor deciding to just fuck me over. Whether the software is free (as in beer or freedom) or not is a secondary concern - I'm merely noting that even a license as strong as AGPL is not a guarantee that I won't get fucked.
  - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
    It is, though? All that is required is that you're allowed to maintain your own fork. Which is guaranteed to you, in perpetuity, by the AGPL.
    - rollcat 3y ago
      How's Linux 2.6 going?
      - Longlius 3y ago
        Still working fine? You can run Linux 2.6 just fine on the hardware it supports and even backport newer features you want.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  Nobody wants to guarantee perpetual future labor. The guarantee we want is that if there's future labor, then we want the fruits of it to remain FOSS.
EarlKing 3y ago
There is. It's called Pay The Author. If you don't have a bare license conditioned on someone's pinky promise, but rather you pay the author and thereby perfect that promise into an actual, enforceable contract, then when someone attempts a rug-pull you can actually file suit to enforce your legal rights. Simple as.

iudqnolq 3y ago

A project could always be abandoned, there's no way to guarantee perpetual labor on your behalf.

falcor84 3y ago
What does this have to do with the preceding argument? Yes, the company could abandon the project, but the concern here is about them taking all the previous work (including volunteer contributions) and proceeding with a more restrictive commercial license; that's what we want to prevent.
- asalahli 3y ago
  > the concern here is about them taking all the previous work Not unless they retroactively change the license on said previous work, which I'm pretty sure they cannot.
  - falcor84 3y ago
    I haven't looked into GameMaker's license specifically, but many projects require a copyright assignment as part of their contributor license agreement.
    - zem 3y ago
      that allows relicensing of the combined work moving forward, not retroactive relicensing of already released code.
      - falcor84 3y ago
        That's indeed what I meant, apologies if I was unclear.
rollcat 3y ago
The concern is not about free labor, the concern is that the product I'm building might get killed by vendor deciding to just fuck me over. Whether the software is free (as in beer or freedom) or not is a secondary concern - I'm merely noting that even a license as strong as AGPL is not a guarantee that I won't get fucked.
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  It is, though? All that is required is that you're allowed to maintain your own fork. Which is guaranteed to you, in perpetuity, by the AGPL.
  - rollcat 3y ago
    How's Linux 2.6 going?
    - Longlius 3y ago
      Still working fine? You can run Linux 2.6 just fine on the hardware it supports and even backport newer features you want.
josephcsible 3y ago
Nobody wants to guarantee perpetual future labor. The guarantee we want is that if there's future labor, then we want the fruits of it to remain FOSS.

EarlKing 3y ago

There is. It's called Pay The Author. If you don't have a bare license conditioned on someone's pinky promise, but rather you pay the author and thereby perfect that promise into an actual, enforceable contract, then when someone attempts a rug-pull you can actually file suit to enforce your legal rights. Simple as.