And it the fork gets adapted the user base doesn't use an open source project anymore. Changes which aren't synced get shipped and you can't substitute anymore.

Permissive licenses are bad: Someone can take your entire code, build upon it, get hand of the userbase and then make weird changes. They don't protect the users in any form.

Just imagine someone changed the tools you use daily in such a way that none of your workflows are executed in the same way prior.

You just learn this once you are truly affected. And trust me - This sucks hard.

[–] thingsiplay@beehaw.org 0 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Right, but the other fork became its own project. I have no problem with it. As long as the original code license is not changed.

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The original code remains available under the original.

Any proprietary code would have to be code that was added on top of that.

You always have the ability to keep using the Own Source code. That is a freedom you have.

If you decide that proprietary version is “better” and choose to use that, well that is a freedom you have. But now you have accepted a proprietary license. Your choice.

[–] 7dev7random7@suppo.fi 1 points 2 weeks ago

Any proprietary code would have to be code that was added on top of that.

That generalization is wrong. If the license does not state that freedom one can revoke said thing. The author(s) can change the entire license.

If not stated you may be able to fork off a previous version. Depending on the CLA (or its absence) you may have to speak with any contributor prior to publishing your fork!!!!

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)