4 ms·

I don’t understand the license here https://github.com/blocksmd/blocksmd?tab=License-1-ov-file#readme https://github.com/blocksmd/blocksmd?tab=License-1-ov-file

by oefrha 2y ago

I don’t understand the license here https://github.com/blocksmd/blocksmd?tab=License-1-ov-file#readme https://github.com/blocksmd/blocksmd?tab=License-1-ov-file#r... It says Business Source License 1.1 which basically means I’m free to use as long as I don’t use it to build a competitive offering. Fair enough. But it changes to AGPL-3.0 on 2028-07-01, what? Basically now I need to open source my entire stack that has any connection to the form? Why would you change it to a more restrictive license (for anyone not looking to build a competitive offering) after a few years? --- Unrelated, I find the DSL increasingly unwieldy as you get to more advanced features (especially styling). Might want to consider offering a JSX/TSX alternative for more advanced use cases.

uneekname 2y ago
IANAL but from what I understand, folks will be able to use the current version of the software as it is currently licensed, forever. The author is making clear their intent to change the license on a certain date, at which point new versions of the software will only be available under AGPL. I agree it's odd that folks who use this software something that isn't a "competitive offering" may have to open-source their software stack if they upgrade to a new version in 2028. But, they will always have the option to use an older version of the software that is still covered by the BSL.
- oefrha 2y ago
  No that’s not how these license changes works. The current version is licensed under a source available license until a certain point in the future when it’s converted to an open source license, so people can use the by then possibly very outdated version freely. Or they can upgrade to the newer but still source available version if there is one. It’s meant to be an assurance that in case the business is gone by then, you the user and/or customer can still patch it yourself or rely on a community fork to keep it working. Except here thanks to the AGPL choice, it seems to be the exact opposite of an assurance: if you use this in a proprietary setting, you’re just fucked if the business is gone and the software needs patching.
  - dspillett 2y ago
    If you obtained the version you have under the current license, you can not be held by the more restrictive terms when the license changes at a later date, even if the owner changes the license on the current/older versions rather than just using the new license for new versions. This isn't like a service where they can try force you to agree to an updated EULA with some "by continuing to use this service…" crap, or a rented device like a "smart" TV that can effectively do the same by refusing to work (though technically you've already agreed to that with a "we can fuck you over at a later date" clause in previous click-through agreements.
    - oefrha 2y ago
      The license is one thing before 2028-07-01 and another thing afterwards. That’s the license you get right now, they’re not changing it after the fact. To put it more accurately, there’s no license change in the future, it’s simply one license with a set of terms before a certain date and another set of terms after it, they’re only calling it a license change because the set of terms afterwards constitute a well known license. Contracts like this are absolutely valid. If it still doesn’t make sense to you, think of a trial license.
      - dspillett 2y ago
        Ah, I'd misread the comments and assumed it was an actual license change that was planned. Having actually read the LICENSE file on GitHub I have to agree. Mixing the two into one like that basically means you agree to the worst of both options. I have nothing against AGPL, in fact if I relase anything I'll probably use it, but if I did dislike it, which some very much do, I wouldn't tough this with a bargepole even years before the change.
darkhorse13 2y ago
So I did not want to open-source yet, which is why I picked BUSL-1.1, and from what I can tell, the other BUSL-1.1 I've looked at had this clause to open-source at a later date (AGPL3 is an open-source license after all). I'm still trying to figure out the licensing around this whole thing, so this is temporary I believe.
- brainless 2y ago
  It is AGPL that most people will have an issue with. Perhaps you can select a different license for the automatic switch.

by oefrha 2y ago

uneekname 2y ago

IANAL but from what I understand, folks will be able to use the current version of the software as it is currently licensed, forever. The author is making clear their intent to change the license on a certain date, at which point new versions of the software will only be available under AGPL. I agree it's odd that folks who use this software something that isn't a "competitive offering" may have to open-source their software stack if they upgrade to a new version in 2028. But, they will always have the option to use an older version of the software that is still covered by the BSL.

oefrha 2y ago
No that’s not how these license changes works. The current version is licensed under a source available license until a certain point in the future when it’s converted to an open source license, so people can use the by then possibly very outdated version freely. Or they can upgrade to the newer but still source available version if there is one. It’s meant to be an assurance that in case the business is gone by then, you the user and/or customer can still patch it yourself or rely on a community fork to keep it working. Except here thanks to the AGPL choice, it seems to be the exact opposite of an assurance: if you use this in a proprietary setting, you’re just fucked if the business is gone and the software needs patching.
- dspillett 2y ago
  If you obtained the version you have under the current license, you can not be held by the more restrictive terms when the license changes at a later date, even if the owner changes the license on the current/older versions rather than just using the new license for new versions. This isn't like a service where they can try force you to agree to an updated EULA with some "by continuing to use this service…" crap, or a rented device like a "smart" TV that can effectively do the same by refusing to work (though technically you've already agreed to that with a "we can fuck you over at a later date" clause in previous click-through agreements.
  - oefrha 2y ago
    The license is one thing before 2028-07-01 and another thing afterwards. That’s the license you get right now, they’re not changing it after the fact. To put it more accurately, there’s no license change in the future, it’s simply one license with a set of terms before a certain date and another set of terms after it, they’re only calling it a license change because the set of terms afterwards constitute a well known license. Contracts like this are absolutely valid. If it still doesn’t make sense to you, think of a trial license.
    - dspillett 2y ago
      Ah, I'd misread the comments and assumed it was an actual license change that was planned. Having actually read the LICENSE file on GitHub I have to agree. Mixing the two into one like that basically means you agree to the worst of both options. I have nothing against AGPL, in fact if I relase anything I'll probably use it, but if I did dislike it, which some very much do, I wouldn't tough this with a bargepole even years before the change.

darkhorse13 2y ago

So I did not want to open-source yet, which is why I picked BUSL-1.1, and from what I can tell, the other BUSL-1.1 I've looked at had this clause to open-source at a later date (AGPL3 is an open-source license after all). I'm still trying to figure out the licensing around this whole thing, so this is temporary I believe.

brainless 2y ago
It is AGPL that most people will have an issue with. Perhaps you can select a different license for the automatic switch.