[cxr]

> 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.

[mekster]

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?

[gary-kim]

> 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.