upvote

points

by embedding-shape23 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby ceejayoz23 hours ago|
next
[-]
The situation changed. A license that's the right choice at one point may not be the right license a decade later.
reply
upvoteby ncruces23 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That's fair, but forking the FOSS version is also an adequate response.
reply
upvoteby ceejayoz22 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yes. But so would financially contributing to the folks who did the work.
reply
upvoteby tedivm19 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
AWS literally did that. They paid for full time developers to contribute back to the redis code base, including core redis developers. If you actually look at the redis code base the majority of it was written by people who never worked for redis.
reply
upvoteby cylemons10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> If you actually look at the redis code base the majority of it was written by people who never worked for redis.

Thats a really big deal, how did they legally managed to do the license change? I was under the impression that only works if the original owner is the doing most work

reply
upvoteby sakjur6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Permissive licenses don't protect against projects that decide to change the license when releasing a new version.

Copyleft protects against that as a general rule. However some projects that rely on copyleft require contributors to sign license agreements granting the project owners a more permissive license.

reply
upvoteby jen203 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> Thats a really big deal, how did they legally managed to do the license change? I was under the impression that only works if the original owner is the doing most work

Almost all of these license changes just change the terms under which _new_ work is contributed - which is why many of them have forks from the last OSI-licensed commit.

reply
upvoteby ncruces19 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Sure.

Since they're a for profit entity, they'll do whatever they think offers the best cost/benefit.

reply
upvoteby chii21 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
If those folks wanted money for their work, they should be charging a price for it.
reply
upvoteby ceejayoz21 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That’s what they eventually did, yes.

But it’s ok to be voluntarily grateful for hard work.

reply
upvoteby sumedh14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> But it’s ok to be voluntarily grateful for hard work.

You don't become a billionaire using that approach though.

reply
upvoteby jabwd13 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I hate Amazon and monopolies, but I hate companies that think opensourcing their code as a marketing stunt gives them more rights or whatever. If you don't want to opensource, then don't?!
reply
upvoteby sincerely11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I can’t agree more, this “our software is open source but we have unwritten rules about how you can use it or we’ll attempt to shame you” attitude is absurd
reply
upvoteby embedding-shape23 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Agree, as long as existing contributors agree the license should be changed, projects should feel free to do so, no harm, no foul.
reply
upvoteby tonyedgecombe23 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
I’m not sure any open source license is going to help when you can ask Claude to clone an application in the language of your choice.
reply
upvoteby pessimizer21 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
If Claude looks at the code when it does it, then you can still sue them. I don't think there's a "Claude Clean Room" product that trains on everything except the code you might be accused of copying.

I can't just translate Harry Potter to Spanish and sell it.

reply