4 ms·

"Both examples you cited are not related to exercising rights given under a permissive license: instead they are the upstream maintainers deciding to change the

"Both examples you cited are not related to exercising rights given under a permissive license: instead they are the upstream maintainers deciding to change the terms of future releases." But that is exactly what the permissive license made possible! It could never ever happen to, say the Linux kernal, because of the GPL (plus a wide distribution of Copright to many people, which is not important here, because it is no different't from MongoDB or Redis).

chungy 3y ago
> But that is exactly what the permissive license made possible! No, it's what being the legal owner of a work makes possible. If MongoDB were GPL-licensed, the exact same scenario could have played out. Licenses for licensees do not apply to the licensor. > It could never ever happen to, say the Linux kernal, because of the GPL Linux never required a CLA; thousands of people own the code. If, instead, copyright were assigned to Linus Torvalds or The Linux Foundation, it would be entirely possible and feasible.
- weinzierl 3y ago
  "If MongoDB were GPL-licensed, the exact same scenario could have played out. Licenses for licensees do not apply to the licensor" Actually MongoDB was AGPL before, so it was a terrible example for the point about permissive licenses and excellently illustrates your point. "Linux never required a CLA;" And so neither did Redis and it still went the same route as MongoDB. The BSD license facilitated it. "thousands of people own the code. If, instead, copyright were assigned to Linus Torvalds or The Linux Foundation, it would be entirely possible and feasible." True, but it isn't and it would not have to be to go the same route as Redis if it had a permissive license. The moral of the story is: If you value your freedoms don't contribute to permissively licensed projects and never ever assign your right, title or interest in any copyright you have.

chungy 3y ago

> But that is exactly what the permissive license made possible! No, it's what being the legal owner of a work makes possible. If MongoDB were GPL-licensed, the exact same scenario could have played out. Licenses for licensees do not apply to the licensor. > It could never ever happen to, say the Linux kernal, because of the GPL Linux never required a CLA; thousands of people own the code. If, instead, copyright were assigned to Linus Torvalds or The Linux Foundation, it would be entirely possible and feasible.

weinzierl 3y ago
"If MongoDB were GPL-licensed, the exact same scenario could have played out. Licenses for licensees do not apply to the licensor" Actually MongoDB was AGPL before, so it was a terrible example for the point about permissive licenses and excellently illustrates your point. "Linux never required a CLA;" And so neither did Redis and it still went the same route as MongoDB. The BSD license facilitated it. "thousands of people own the code. If, instead, copyright were assigned to Linus Torvalds or The Linux Foundation, it would be entirely possible and feasible." True, but it isn't and it would not have to be to go the same route as Redis if it had a permissive license. The moral of the story is: If you value your freedoms don't contribute to permissively licensed projects and never ever assign your right, title or interest in any copyright you have.