this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
48 points (98.0% liked)
Forgejo
137 readers
1 users here now
This is a community dedicated to Forgejo.
Useful links:
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to Forgejo
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
- Try to keep discussions on topic
- No spam of tools/companies/advertisements
- It’s ok to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the community should not be self-promotion.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How did they get permission from all previous contributors to do this? It doesn't have a CLA. Seems sketchy.
Existing code is MIT licensed, that's their permission. Sublicensing without restriction is one of the parts of MIT.
Yes but it doesn't let you remove the MIT license:
Doesn't look like they are complying with those terms to me.
All source files have individual comment headers with the original authors and license identifier. It's not the full license text but I do believe that style is compliant.
Yeah... But that's even more confusing since they didn't change it to "MIT AND GPL3". So now the whole project is GPL3 but individual files are MIT?
I think they should speak to someone who understands copyright law.
the MIT copyright notice is still present with all copies of MIT licensed code, I don't see the problem?
The problem is that there's ambiguity if you add new code to those files because the file header says it is MIT licensed but the project licence says it is GPL3. It's contradictory.
I believe they could have resolved the issue by deleting the file headers and including a copy of the MIT license in
LICENSEwith a note saying something like "Code at this commit is fully licensed under the MIT license which is reproduced here; subsequent code is licensed only under the GPL3. Both licenses must be respected."But they haven't done that, and it doesn't seem like they've even thought about it.
I'd opine that the MIT license has no requirements about avoiding ambiguity. That's kind of its thing, it's as unobtrusive as possible and minimizes the amount of having to think about license compliance minefields.
And incidentally they have done quite a bit to avoid ambiguity, in readme.md:
though they also distribute binary-only copies.. the main website even recommends downloading the binary. not even a tarball, just the plain binary. which even in old versions don't contain an MIT license at all. Even a hexdump of the binary does not contain any representation of the MIT text. I think that's actually an MIT license violation?
I think that's probably fine actually since the place they are distributing the binary from (Codeberg releases) has a copy of the licence easily available.
Err yeah of course not. The issue with creating ambiguous or conflicting legal requirements is that they might not get applied how you'd like if it went to court. For example Amazon might fork Forgejo and keep it closed source, saying "we copied the individual source files and those are MIT licensed" and they might win. The license text doesn't have to say anything about that for it to be true.