Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gary-kim 2153 days ago
At least for me, the fact that it is purely licensed under the AGPL and that the copyright is owned by multiple people makes me far more comfortable with using it. It's a guarantee that the project will remain open source so I don't have to worry about suddenly being in a situation where I have to migrate away because the company or person decided that they don't want to have this be free and open source software anymore.

I guess, to a certain extent, that's because I'm an individual, not a company, and one that tends to open source pretty much everything they write. This is the same licensing that I use for pretty much all my projects (AGPL with no CLA).
1 comments
mekster 2153 days ago
> It's a guarantee that the project will remain open source

What are you talking about? They can change the license to a closed one from a certain version in the future.

link
cxr 2153 days ago
> They can change the license to a closed one from a certain version in the future.

You're right if and only if by "they" you mean every copyright holder whose contributions would exist in the future version (including, say, the contributions of the very person you're responding to). But if by "they" you mean the project leaders acting without the cooperation of everyone who holds copyright, then that's a no.

link
mekster 2153 days ago
It was easy to tell it's almost one man's job if you look at the level of integrity the software has.

https://github.com/Requarks/wiki/graphs/contributors

Main guy commiting 600k lines and the second most committed guy 450 lines.

So yeah, it wouldn't take him a whole lot of time if he really wanted to change the license by removing all the others' commits and rewriting it by himself.

Also, what does AGPL has anything to do with keeping the license open sourced?

link
gary-kim 2153 days ago
> Main guy commiting 600k lines and the second most committed guy 450 lines.

> So yeah, it wouldn't take him a whole lot of time if he really wanted to change the license by removing all the others' commits and rewriting it by himself.

Good point. I may try to get involved in its development as well to spread that out a little more.

> Also, what does AGPL has anything to do with keeping the license open sourced?

The AGPL requires that any code linked to it also be distributed with an AGPL license (the difference from the GPL being that hosting over a network counts as distribution). Every part of the project is technically linked to itself so if someone makes a change, no one else can use that change in the project under a different license.

link
fungos 2153 days ago
For future versions, not past versions.
link
hundchenkatze 2153 days ago
I don't think any of the mainstream open-source licenses allow you to retroactively revoke or change the license.
link
fungos 2153 days ago
If they are the sole copyright owners (no external contribution) or have SLAs, they can for any future version of the software. It is not uncommon, it is just hard as most doesn't have SLA to do this.
link
cxr 2153 days ago
> If they are the sole copyright owners (no external contribution)

That's not the scenario gary-kim laid out; you've failed to satisfy the constraints in the premise.

link
fungos 2153 days ago
Read better, I'm not replying to him. I agree with him.
link
fungos 2153 days ago
Not sure why I'm getting downvoted, but this does not change the fact that yes, licenses can be changed. You disliking it does not make it wrong.
link