4 ms·
There are several complications; see here: https://lwn.net/Articles/984249/ https://lwn.net/Articles/984249/. For example, if the copyright holder applies a se
by bonzini 2y ago
There are several complications; see here: https://lwn.net/Articles/984249/ https://lwn.net/Articles/984249/.
For example, if the copyright holder applies a security fix to an old version that had "expired" and is now open source, will that cause old version to revert to source-available? Does any security fix, even the simplest one, require clean room reverse engineering on part of the community? Unless these questions are answered clearly by the copyright holder, BUSL/FSL are not really usable as open source even after the expiration date.
- notpushkin 2y ago> For example, if the copyright holder applies a security fix to an old version that had "expired" and is now open source, will that cause old version to revert to source-available? Yeah, it’s tricky. By default, I think it does go back to source-available, but I would trust the vendor to explicitly release the fix as open source instead. Of course, it should be addressed in future versions of such licenses, and in the meanwhile vendors should promise to not hold security updates out. It’s not something exclusive to delayed licenses though: vendor of a permissively licensed software can make a security fix under a proprietary license. They don’t do this because it would be a dick move and the community will fork the software, but this is a possibility.
- immibis 2y agoNever "trust" a vendor to do something in your best interest for free. That's like trusting your landlord not to raise your rent.