8 ms·

Apparently it changed from 2-clause BSD: https://github.com/bigskysoftware/htmx/commit/e16f1865a494b6281f8a44ed0db5338e718b3f07 https://github.com/bigskysoftwar

Apparently it changed from 2-clause BSD: https://github.com/bigskysoftware/htmx/commit/e16f1865a494b6281f8a44ed0db5338e718b3f07 https://github.com/bigskysoftware/htmx/commit/e16f1865a494b6... (The zero clause license drops the requirements for preserving the copyright notice when distributing)

philipwhiuk 3y ago
They don't seem to have a CLA so that's interesting...
- Zambyte 3y ago
  Why is that interesting?
  - sam_bristow 3y ago
    Without a CLA or equivalent mechanism they would need to get the agreement of every contributor to change licences. Once a project gets large enough the sheer number of people involved usually makes this impossible
    - jbboehr 3y ago
      (IANAL) Here's an example where an MIT-licensed project switched to APGL recently without needing to contact contributors[0]. Interestingly, the MIT license explicitly names and allows sublicensing, but the 2-BSD and 0-BSD do not call it out explicitly. tldrlegal[1] seems to think 0-BSD allows sublicensing, but doesn't mention it on the page for 2-BSD[2]. I'm not sure what to make of that. [0]: https://github.com/immich-app/immich/discussions/7023#discussioncomment-8486773 https://github.com/immich-app/immich/discussions/7023#discus... [1]: https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/bsd-0-clause-license https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/bsd-0-clause-license [2]: https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/bsd-2-clause-license-freebsd https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/bsd-2-clause-license-freeb...
      - torstenvl 3y ago
        0-BSD doesn't have any conditions at all. 2-BSD does. The MIT → AGPL example isn't very illustrative. The requirements under AGPL are a strict superset of the requirements under MIT. Going MIT → 0-BSD is a bit trickier, because distribution under 0-BSD doesn't meet the requirements of MIT.
    - fagnerbrack 3y ago
      Twitter Bootstrap had to do that in the early days. Such a pain I wouldn't want for myself.

philipwhiuk 3y ago

They don't seem to have a CLA so that's interesting...

Zambyte 3y ago
Why is that interesting?
- sam_bristow 3y ago
  Without a CLA or equivalent mechanism they would need to get the agreement of every contributor to change licences. Once a project gets large enough the sheer number of people involved usually makes this impossible
  - jbboehr 3y ago
    (IANAL) Here's an example where an MIT-licensed project switched to APGL recently without needing to contact contributors[0]. Interestingly, the MIT license explicitly names and allows sublicensing, but the 2-BSD and 0-BSD do not call it out explicitly. tldrlegal[1] seems to think 0-BSD allows sublicensing, but doesn't mention it on the page for 2-BSD[2]. I'm not sure what to make of that. [0]: https://github.com/immich-app/immich/discussions/7023#discussioncomment-8486773 https://github.com/immich-app/immich/discussions/7023#discus... [1]: https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/bsd-0-clause-license https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/bsd-0-clause-license [2]: https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/bsd-2-clause-license-freebsd https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/bsd-2-clause-license-freeb...
    - torstenvl 3y ago
      0-BSD doesn't have any conditions at all. 2-BSD does. The MIT → AGPL example isn't very illustrative. The requirements under AGPL are a strict superset of the requirements under MIT. Going MIT → 0-BSD is a bit trickier, because distribution under 0-BSD doesn't meet the requirements of MIT.
  - fagnerbrack 3y ago
    Twitter Bootstrap had to do that in the early days. Such a pain I wouldn't want for myself.