3 ms·

Correct; however, without a CLA and assuming there are outside contributors, relicensing the existing code would be mildly painful, if not downright impossible.

woodruffw 1y ago
You're saying that would be more painful in a viral license setting, right? If so I agree, although I think there's a pretty long track record of financially incentivized companies being willing to take that pain. MongoDB's AGPL transition comes to mind. But, to refocus on the case at hand: Astral's tools don't require contributors to sign a CLA. I understand (and am sympathetic) to the suspicion here, but the bigger picture here is that Astral wants to build services as a product, rather than compromising the open source nature of its tools. That's why the announcement tries to cleanly differentiate between the two.
- stackskipton 1y ago
  They have no need to, current repos show everything is under MIT/Apache. They could close the source at any time and not worry about CLA. >bigger picture here is that Astral wants to build services as a product What services? pyx? Looks nice but I doubt my boss is going to pay for it. More likely they just say "Whatever, package is in PyPi, use that." UV, Ruff, Ty. Again, maybe they can get some data/quant firm who REALLY cares about speed to use their products. Everyone else will emit a long sigh, grab pip/poetry, black and mypy and move on.
  - pepoluan 1y ago
    It ultimately depends on a company's risk appetite. Some companies specify that packages need to be hosted on their internal repository/artifactory, and for these companies, pyx might be a good tool.
    - jamespo 1y ago
      Exactly, allowing employees to install pypi packages from the internet isn't different to allowing them to install any software from the internet.
- pxc 1y ago
  > I think there's a pretty long track record of financially incentivized companies being willing to take that pain. MongoDB's AGPL transition comes to mind. MongoDB had a CLA from the start, didn't it? > Astral's tools don't require contributors to sign a CLA. That's a pretty vital difference!
  - Epa095 1y ago
    >> Astral's tools don't require contributors to sign a CLA. > That's a pretty vital difference Not really when the license is MIT/Apache. They can create a closed source fork and continue development there.
    - pxc 1y ago
      Ah yeah, whoops. Either a CLA or permissive license is enough on its own to facilitate such a license change.
- notpushkin 1y ago
  Yeah, only the (viral license + no CLA) combo has this effect of preventing you from changing license down the road. In your case (permissive license, no CLA) you still can relicense uv or Ruff. Not saying that you will do it, of course :-) I do like your strategy, hope it works out!
knowitnone2 1y ago
yeah? who's going to court for multiple years to fight giants? Maybe they'll pull a RedHat and put the code behind a subscription service. Still OSS right?

woodruffw 1y ago

You're saying that would be more painful in a viral license setting, right? If so I agree, although I think there's a pretty long track record of financially incentivized companies being willing to take that pain. MongoDB's AGPL transition comes to mind. But, to refocus on the case at hand: Astral's tools don't require contributors to sign a CLA. I understand (and am sympathetic) to the suspicion here, but the bigger picture here is that Astral wants to build services as a product, rather than compromising the open source nature of its tools. That's why the announcement tries to cleanly differentiate between the two.

stackskipton 1y ago
They have no need to, current repos show everything is under MIT/Apache. They could close the source at any time and not worry about CLA. >bigger picture here is that Astral wants to build services as a product What services? pyx? Looks nice but I doubt my boss is going to pay for it. More likely they just say "Whatever, package is in PyPi, use that." UV, Ruff, Ty. Again, maybe they can get some data/quant firm who REALLY cares about speed to use their products. Everyone else will emit a long sigh, grab pip/poetry, black and mypy and move on.
- pepoluan 1y ago
  It ultimately depends on a company's risk appetite. Some companies specify that packages need to be hosted on their internal repository/artifactory, and for these companies, pyx might be a good tool.
  - jamespo 1y ago
    Exactly, allowing employees to install pypi packages from the internet isn't different to allowing them to install any software from the internet.
pxc 1y ago
> I think there's a pretty long track record of financially incentivized companies being willing to take that pain. MongoDB's AGPL transition comes to mind. MongoDB had a CLA from the start, didn't it? > Astral's tools don't require contributors to sign a CLA. That's a pretty vital difference!
- Epa095 1y ago
  >> Astral's tools don't require contributors to sign a CLA. > That's a pretty vital difference Not really when the license is MIT/Apache. They can create a closed source fork and continue development there.
  - pxc 1y ago
    Ah yeah, whoops. Either a CLA or permissive license is enough on its own to facilitate such a license change.
notpushkin 1y ago
Yeah, only the (viral license + no CLA) combo has this effect of preventing you from changing license down the road. In your case (permissive license, no CLA) you still can relicense uv or Ruff. Not saying that you will do it, of course :-) I do like your strategy, hope it works out!

knowitnone2 1y ago

yeah? who's going to court for multiple years to fight giants? Maybe they'll pull a RedHat and put the code behind a subscription service. Still OSS right?