It was if I remember right, just not by the dev
Mondez@lemdro.id 3 weeks ago
I think this should have been anticipated after the license change.
Whostosay@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Mondez@lemdro.id 3 weeks ago
I think this should have been anticipated after the license change.
It was if I remember right, just not by the dev
nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 3 weeks ago
Yeah. That’s a pretty shitty license to move to for endusers and others. Disallowing derivatives, etc. is within their rights but, really a dick move but, considering this commit message, not surprising.
deadcade@lemmy.deadca.de 3 weeks ago
It’s actually not within their rights (I am NOT a lawyer)
GPL code is still owned by the person who wrote it, that includes contributors who have made a PR. Unless they all signed CLAs (Contributor License Agreements) to hand over their copyright to the repository owner, the repository owner does not hold copyright for this code, and as such can’t legally change the license. They can use and distribute it as specified in the license terms of the GPL, but that excludes changing the license.
vzqq@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
That’s true, but only contributors have standing to do something about it. Unless there are contributors with contributions that are not easily patched out that are willing to make a case out of it, we’re stuck with the last GPL version.
tabular@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
There’s a GPL compliance lawsuit where they’re suing NOT as a copyright holder of contrubtor’s code but as a user of the software (a 3rd party beneficiary, under contract law). The GPL was intended to give standing to users of the software, so hopeful this makes presidence.
patatahooligan@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I remember the maintainer claiming they had permission from all contributors to change the license but I can’t find a link to it now.