4 ms·

There is no difference between them with regards to licensing. The company distributing open source could change license anytime they wish, but they can't chang

There is no difference between them with regards to licensing. The company distributing open source could change license anytime they wish, but they can't change license for the user who have accepted previous license when downloading the code.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
> The company distributing open source could change license anytime they wish That really depends on the license and whether there's a CLA in play. If the code is copyleft (most likely GPL but there are others) and they take 3rd party contributions under that license then it's generally not possible/practical to relicense. (IANAL, YMMV)
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  Linux is GPL licensed and has CLA. And it is open source in most definitions of open source.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    Does it? I couldn't seem to find anything about that. The closest I could find was https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/1.Intro.html#licensing https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/1.Intro.html#... which says > Copyright assignments are not required (or requested) for code contributed to the kernel. All code merged into the mainline kernel retains its original ownership; as a result, the kernel now has thousands of owners. and then goes on to explain exactly how that prevents re-licensing. I suppose the possible nitpick is if CLA == copyright assignment; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement seems to agree with my existing impression that there's little functional difference.
    - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
      Sorry, I did google search and misattributed it. All GNU and FSF projects has CLA[1]. And having GPL is an understatement for them as they created GPL and they have been a leader of open source for 40 years. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago

> The company distributing open source could change license anytime they wish That really depends on the license and whether there's a CLA in play. If the code is copyleft (most likely GPL but there are others) and they take 3rd party contributions under that license then it's generally not possible/practical to relicense. (IANAL, YMMV)

YetAnotherNick 3y ago
Linux is GPL licensed and has CLA. And it is open source in most definitions of open source.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  Does it? I couldn't seem to find anything about that. The closest I could find was https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/1.Intro.html#licensing https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/1.Intro.html#... which says > Copyright assignments are not required (or requested) for code contributed to the kernel. All code merged into the mainline kernel retains its original ownership; as a result, the kernel now has thousands of owners. and then goes on to explain exactly how that prevents re-licensing. I suppose the possible nitpick is if CLA == copyright assignment; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement seems to agree with my existing impression that there's little functional difference.
  - YetAnotherNick 3y ago
    Sorry, I did google search and misattributed it. All GNU and FSF projects has CLA[1]. And having GPL is an understatement for them as they created GPL and they have been a leader of open source for 40 years. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html