4 ms·

It's central to open source that licenses can't be revoked - if they could, then accepting contributions from external developers would be a hazard (they could

It's central to open source that licenses can't be revoked - if they could, then accepting contributions from external developers would be a hazard (they could withdraw their contributions and then you would need to get rid of their code)

DANmode 3y ago
But what about the case of single-entity repos?
- xattt 3y ago
  I feel like Nintendo would own the source from a particular snapshot, kind of like how certain projects close their code.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> It’s central to open source that licenses can’t be revoked That…doesn’t change the underlying law. > if they could, then accepting contributions from external developers would be a hazard Accepting code from external developers under a gratuitous license is a hazard (given promissory estoppel, probably a fairly limited one, but still something of a hazard); that is one of the reasons that some projects, even if they offer code in a way which is likely a gratuitous license, require individual license contracts before incorporating third-party code. (Of course, there is still a hazard – the third party offering code might misrepresent their ownership of it, or despite copyright ownership might have violated a software patent, or… mitigating all hazards isn’t possible and individual projects decide their own risk tolerance.)
- nextaccountic 3y ago
  > gratuitous license What does this mean? Also.. do you have any references?
  - cassianoleal 3y ago
    > What does this mean? I'm wondering the same. Perhaps something got lost in a double-translation? i.e. free -> <something in another language> -> gratuitous
    - dllthomas 3y ago
      IIUC it means a license that's granted without the consideration that would usually be required for a contract. I think that's approximately what'd be meant by a "free license" in ordinary English, with no extra connection to "Free Software". The references I'm finding are about physical property, though.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > What does this mean? A license that is not part of a contract (usually, because of the absence of mutual consideration.)
MiguelX413 3y ago
That's exactly what is precedented, that is to say, exactly that has happened many times in history already.
- nextaccountic 3y ago
  Do you have a link? Any reference? There are billion dollar business whose existence would be threatened if someone did this..
  - MiguelX413 3y ago
    I remember it happened with Bukkit once but I don't know a good search engine with which I could actually search for a link.

DANmode 3y ago

But what about the case of single-entity repos?

xattt 3y ago
I feel like Nintendo would own the source from a particular snapshot, kind of like how certain projects close their code.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> It’s central to open source that licenses can’t be revoked That…doesn’t change the underlying law. > if they could, then accepting contributions from external developers would be a hazard Accepting code from external developers under a gratuitous license is a hazard (given promissory estoppel, probably a fairly limited one, but still something of a hazard); that is one of the reasons that some projects, even if they offer code in a way which is likely a gratuitous license, require individual license contracts before incorporating third-party code. (Of course, there is still a hazard – the third party offering code might misrepresent their ownership of it, or despite copyright ownership might have violated a software patent, or… mitigating all hazards isn’t possible and individual projects decide their own risk tolerance.)

nextaccountic 3y ago
> gratuitous license What does this mean? Also.. do you have any references?
- cassianoleal 3y ago
  > What does this mean? I'm wondering the same. Perhaps something got lost in a double-translation? i.e. free -> <something in another language> -> gratuitous
  - dllthomas 3y ago
    IIUC it means a license that's granted without the consideration that would usually be required for a contract. I think that's approximately what'd be meant by a "free license" in ordinary English, with no extra connection to "Free Software". The references I'm finding are about physical property, though.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > What does this mean? A license that is not part of a contract (usually, because of the absence of mutual consideration.)

MiguelX413 3y ago

That's exactly what is precedented, that is to say, exactly that has happened many times in history already.

nextaccountic 3y ago
Do you have a link? Any reference? There are billion dollar business whose existence would be threatened if someone did this..
- MiguelX413 3y ago
  I remember it happened with Bukkit once but I don't know a good search engine with which I could actually search for a link.