3 ms·
> How many people did (so much more than me) with all these projects to be later betrayed by relicensing. Were you betrayed? They did a thing you licensed the
by eadmund 3y ago
> How many people did (so much more than me) with all these projects to be later betrayed by relicensing.
Were you betrayed? They did a thing you licensed them to do. That’s the whole point of non-copyleft free software licenses, after all! It’s kind of odd to specifically choose a license which allows others to use one’s code in proprietary software, then be upset when others use one’s code in proprietary software.
If one wishes one’s software and its users to remain free, the answer is to use a copyleft license.
- jen20 3y agoJust to be clear: MPLv2 is a copyleft license.
- eadmund 3y agoDoh! You’re right.
- vertis 3y agoThey can and did use it in commercial software before relicensing. I don't have a problem with that. It's a betrayal to get a huge community together under one expectation and then decide you don't like that expectation any more. Had they used, even something like AGPL from the start it would not have been successful in the same way, would not have gotten the same levels of outside contributions, so yes it's a betrayal. It's a limited betrayal, because that license also allows for OpenTofu to exist and fork, but the need to do that is just annoying.