Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by lgas 4229 days ago
I'm not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that the existing licenses still apply to the existing code but new versions can always be licensed under a new license (on each release if they wanted), because of the very fact that it's just that: a new release.
1 comments
Argorak 4229 days ago
The important point is that they have a CLA and that one contains copyright assignment. The company behind LightTable holds all rights on your contributions. As the copyright holder, they can change the license however they wish.
link
mkesper 4229 days ago
Well, a good CLA should prevent them from going non-free.
link
Argorak 4229 days ago
"Good" is a definition that differs, depending of the side you are on.

Also, what is "non-free"? Some FOSS advocates would say that they just did that, because it now allows building non-free derivatives for everyone without user-rights to the source.

link
icebraining 4228 days ago
Who claims that releasing software under non-copyleft licenses like MIT and BSD is non-free?
link
Argorak 4228 days ago
Let's start with the man himself: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point..... He would call it "open", but not "free".

The point is that the free software movement views things from the end-users perspective: the user is entitled to see and use the source of every binary blob they get delivered and use. That's an important point of the GPL. FOSS is all about freedom for users.

MIT allows the _developer_, who is not necessary the user, to modify the source, build a binary blob and deliver that to users without ever letting them see the source. The freedom from the users perspective is 0, except those that the developer gives them in their terms of service. MIT is all about freedom for developers.

Which one is the "free" your CLA aims for?

The ambiguity problem with using the term "free" is a well-known issue.

link
icebraining 4228 days ago
Let's start with the man himself: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point..... He would call it "open", but not "free".

I don't think you understood his essay. He's talking about the differences in philosophy between the two approaches, but he doesn't claim that non-copyleft licenses are non-free. In fact, he says that "Nearly all open source software is free software", and has a page listing MIT, BSD, Apache, etc as Free licenses: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html

link
grayclhn 4228 days ago
That's what the absence of a CLA would achieve. Adding a CLA explicitly gives the company the option.
link