Forgejo

140 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

alx

Forgejo is now copyleft, just like Git (forgejo.org)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/forgejo

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sus 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

the MIT copyright notice is still present with all copies of MIT licensed code, I don't see the problem?

[–] FizzyOrange 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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 LICENSE with 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.

[–] sus 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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:

License

Forgejo is distributed under the terms of the GPL version 3.0 or any later version.

The agreement for this license was documented in June 2023 and implemented during the development of Forgejo v9.0. All Forgejo versions before v9.0 are distributed under the MIT license.

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?

[–] FizzyOrange 1 points 3 months ago

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.

the MIT license has no requirements about avoiding ambiguity

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.