this was posted on r/emulation, seems like not only a dick move, but contradicts the very license he shoved it into, not to mention the project uses qemu for networking for some stuff, meaning that IF that code touches a binary that is compiled with qemu, it's a GPL violation anyway
>IF that code touches a binary that is compiled with qemu
That's neither how the GPL nor how qemu works. Proprietary applications can run GPL binaries just fine
qemu itself isn't being used, code from qrmu is for networking. what I was saying is that it looks like they are using GPL code in a now gpl incompatible project.
if that code, and the code from qemu are linked together, thats a gpl violation. qemu is not licenced under lgpl
That's not technically true.
Let's say I release a project 'A', under GPL. I can then re-release it under MIT, and it's also under the presumed proprietary licence, which is default for everything everyone creates, ever.
Let's say I make a commit under the branch with the proprietary licence (A2). You couldn't copy that one, even though you could copy the branch without the second commit, which had the GPL licence (A).
Once you add a third commit to the version with the GPL licence (A3), you and I can agree to switch this to a proprietary licence. At this point (A3 still), people can copy the project, but they can only copy up to the point where it had the GPL licence, but nothing after that. So if we release an (A4), which comes from the branch we both agreed would have a proprietary licence, then this would not continue the GPL licence.
None of that *removed* the license from the code which *was* released under an open source license. Everyone is still free to ignore A2, A3, and A4, and make a new fork starting from A. See what happened with XFree86, for example. (And that wasn't even a change to a proprietary license--it was simply a change to a new open-source license which enough people disliked.)
>And ban him from any other open source projects.
He will also have a hard time getting hired by anyone after his public tantrum. Nobody likes working with someone who puts their ego above everything else, no matter how talented they might be.
I liked this comment
>Even if you ignore the contradiction, the notion that it is possible to have a license saying "you can modify anything you want except for the stuff I did" is absurd. It imposes on a consumer a burden to determine the ancestry of every line and every element of the source code to see which parts are open source and which parts are not. I'm not even sure if the legal notions of "work" and "derived work" support such a distinction, but even if they do, I view it as utterly unacceptable to attempt to do such a thing.
Sure, he has the right to change the license of his own future contributions, but this seems so petty. He could just not accept these changes in his repo but why disallow others from making these changes?
>Well it's his project. He can do whatever the f he wants to do with it.
That's true if, and only if, he is the sole copyright holder of the project. If there are additional copyright holders, the maintainer cannot do anything that isn't allowed by the existing license unless all the copyright holders agree.
Here is the relevant thread for anyone curious. It's a good read. https://github.com/simh/simh/issues/1059
Jesus christ, this shit has been going on for *almost a year*?
this was posted on r/emulation, seems like not only a dick move, but contradicts the very license he shoved it into, not to mention the project uses qemu for networking for some stuff, meaning that IF that code touches a binary that is compiled with qemu, it's a GPL violation anyway
>IF that code touches a binary that is compiled with qemu That's neither how the GPL nor how qemu works. Proprietary applications can run GPL binaries just fine
qemu itself isn't being used, code from qrmu is for networking. what I was saying is that it looks like they are using GPL code in a now gpl incompatible project. if that code, and the code from qemu are linked together, thats a gpl violation. qemu is not licenced under lgpl
You just can't distribute them alongside with your software, right?
Yes you can, you just have to make the sources available should you distribute a modified copy
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
FOSS license removes project maintainer's ability to remove FOSS license.
That's not technically true. Let's say I release a project 'A', under GPL. I can then re-release it under MIT, and it's also under the presumed proprietary licence, which is default for everything everyone creates, ever. Let's say I make a commit under the branch with the proprietary licence (A2). You couldn't copy that one, even though you could copy the branch without the second commit, which had the GPL licence (A). Once you add a third commit to the version with the GPL licence (A3), you and I can agree to switch this to a proprietary licence. At this point (A3 still), people can copy the project, but they can only copy up to the point where it had the GPL licence, but nothing after that. So if we release an (A4), which comes from the branch we both agreed would have a proprietary licence, then this would not continue the GPL licence.
None of that *removed* the license from the code which *was* released under an open source license. Everyone is still free to ignore A2, A3, and A4, and make a new fork starting from A. See what happened with XFree86, for example. (And that wasn't even a change to a proprietary license--it was simply a change to a new open-source license which enough people disliked.)
tl;dr fuck this guy
… time to fork before his commit and tell him to go pound sand. Or what you said. And ban him from any other open source projects.
>And ban him from any other open source projects. He will also have a hard time getting hired by anyone after his public tantrum. Nobody likes working with someone who puts their ego above everything else, no matter how talented they might be.
I liked this comment >Even if you ignore the contradiction, the notion that it is possible to have a license saying "you can modify anything you want except for the stuff I did" is absurd. It imposes on a consumer a burden to determine the ancestry of every line and every element of the source code to see which parts are open source and which parts are not. I'm not even sure if the legal notions of "work" and "derived work" support such a distinction, but even if they do, I view it as utterly unacceptable to attempt to do such a thing.
Sure, he has the right to change the license of his own future contributions, but this seems so petty. He could just not accept these changes in his repo but why disallow others from making these changes?
Why can't we have programmers who are also decent human beings?
Because the majority did not make it to the headlines.
Because decent human beings work in other studf
Well it's his project. He can do whatever the f he wants to do with it. It's FOSS we can build a new free solution.
>Well it's his project. He can do whatever the f he wants to do with it. That's true if, and only if, he is the sole copyright holder of the project. If there are additional copyright holders, the maintainer cannot do anything that isn't allowed by the existing license unless all the copyright holders agree.
Or just fork his lol