185
Forgejo forks its own path forward
(forgejo.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2024
185 points (96.0% liked)
Selfhosted
62266 readers
396 users here now
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil.
-
No spam.
-
Posts are to be related to self-hosting.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.
-
Submission headline should match the article title.
-
No trolling.
-
Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.
-
AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Well yeah, that's how licenses and copyright work - licenses can change. And sure on an adversary take-over (or corporate overloads taking control), that's problematic. However the beauty is, it's still MIT code: It can be forked (see what's happening with redis). However a project copyright (and DCO) is not in place to enable just that, it's in place to enable any license change by the project. Say a license is updated and there are good reasons for the project to move to the updated license - I think it's pretty reasonable that the project would like to be able to do that and therefore retain copyright. Of course you are also free not to contribute such a project. However claiming it's a license violation or unheard of is pretty disingenuous (formerly ingenious, thanks :) ).
This has nothing to do with GPL or MIT: If you own copyright of a GPL licensed code-base, you can change that license at any time. Of course that only applies to new code. And that's the same for GPL or MIT or any other license.
That last bit isn't quite true. When contributions themselves are MIT-licensed, they can be relicensed. When the contributions are GPL-licensed, they can't be relicensed by the product owner, because that right was not granted to them by the contributor. That's where contributor agreements and copyright assignments come in.
(Also I'm pretty sure you wanted "disingenuous", not "ingenuous".)
Right. I was focusing on the point that what matters is the copyright notice. While your pointing out that you can relicense MIT code because MIT is so permissive, while you can relicense GPL to almost nothing, as it's not compatible with most other licenses. However that's kinda moot, you couldn't include GPL code into an MIT licensed project anyway due to the copyleft.
(Thanks for the "ingenuous" correction, I did indeed - to my non-natively speaking brain the "in" acted as a negation to the default "genuous", which yeah, just isn't a thing of course)