Octotree – Proprietary Firefox extension contains AGPL-licensed code
github.com
github.com
For context, when NodeBB faced this possibility, we simply contacted every single contributor and asked nicely if they'd assign over their ownership of their contribution to us (note the use of the word "assign", not "license", a license is revocable, an assignment is not).
Future contributions by new parties required signing of the same Contributor Assignment Agreement.
Here's the CAA if you're interested in reading legalese: https://cla-assistant.io/NodeBB/NodeBB
All in all it took us under a week to secure the assignments, and any who did not sign we simply rewrote their lines of code, or we would have, but everybody signed.
The bar of effort to clear is so low to avoid this kind of controversy!
Reason we went this route: we wanted the flexibility to deliver a proprietary version of NodeBB for those clients that needed it. We get asked often whether there's a difference between the proprietary version and the open source version, but there isn't, it's just for legal reasons.
I've always heard about this possibility but I wonder how one would rewrite code, should the need arise. Wouldn't it be hard to do without effectively making a derivative work?
Suppose that you remove the code, reimplement it but end up with something that's extremely similar to the original (which is very likely since after all you're doing the same thing). Couldn't the original author argue that it's still their code? How do you prove that you did the work and just happened with the same code because that's just the most straightforward way to do it?
It seems like the only way to avoid the problem altogether would be to have some sort of clean room design:
- Dev A reads the code to be removed, writes a spec for the functionality.
- Dev A removes the code.
- Dev B takes the truncated code and the spec and implements the feature.
But that seems very painful to do cleanly, in particular one could argue that B should be a third party who is not intimately familiar with the codebase, otherwise it could be argued that they knew the previous code.
This is an issue GNU has faced, they recommend optimizing for different things:
> If you have a vague recollection of the internals of a Unix program, this does not absolutely mean you can’t write an imitation of it, but do try to organize the imitation internally along different lines, because this is likely to make the details of the Unix version irrelevant and dissimilar to your results.
> For example, Unix utilities were generally optimized to minimize memory use; if you go for speed instead, your program will be very different. You could keep the entire input file in memory and scan it there instead of using stdio. Use a smarter algorithm discovered more recently than the Unix program. Eliminate use of temporary files. Do it in one pass instead of two (we did this in the assembler). — https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Reading-No...
In fact RMS had experience from his competition with Symbolics: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.en.html#foot-6
> The Symbolics source code was available at MIT, where I was entitled to read it, and at first that's how I found out about their changes.
> But that meant I had to make a special effort to solve each problem differently, in order to avoid copying Symbolics code. After a while, I concluded it was better not to even look. That way I could write code in whatever way was best, without concern for what might be in Symbolics' code.
(of course, this applies more to larger utilities, inopinatus’ comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24955918 should come in handy for smaller code snippets)
This was a factor in Intel's case with NEC over the microcode of their 8086 clone, and the judge ruled in NEC's favour, finding that similarities dictated by functional constraints were (subjectively) not creative expressions i.e. copyright did not apply.⁽¹⁾
Note this relates to copyright, does not extinguish patents, and actually relying on this precedent may require bottomless legal resources.
⁽¹⁾ NEC v. Intel: Breaking New Ground in the Law of Copyright. Contreras, Handley, & Yang; Harvard Journal of Law & Technology vol. 3, page 213 (1990). http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v03/03HarvJLTech209...
1. A commit to plainly remove the functionality (or lines of code)
2. A developer would rewrite the code with a set of variables they cannot use, but I suppose they'd also code without the original implementation as reference.
Each individual developer's implementation should be different enough that it would be easy to tell that it was independent crafted, although something like this hasn't been tested in court (at least to my knowledge!)
If the developer who does the rewrite uses the original as a reference, it will be likely that enough of the structure will creep through that the project will be at legal risk.
If you give me a sequence of integers from 1 to 1000 (which is not a creative work and therefore not copyrightable), and I selectively delete some of the integers such that the differences between adjacent numbers contains a fun message in ASCII, and publish that sequence, the result is copyright because those particular deletions add a creative element.
But if I just deleted every alternate number in the sequence, that wouldn't be copyrightable because it's not creative. (Although you can imagine some scenario when doing so might be creative, it would need some reason why it was.)
Basically, if Dev B does a change that passes some threshold of creativity, then they have a claim. If they just go through and delete all the blank lines and reformat in a standard way, they probably don't.
In your example, I think it would depend on which 20 lines and whether they were trivial changes to figure out.
ETA: discussed here, with a more in-depth link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24051655
> For context, when NodeBB faced this possibility, we simply contacted every single contributor and asked nicely if they'd assign over their ownership of their contribution to us (note the use of the word "assign", not "license", a license is revocable, an assignment is not).
This is certainly the correct way to do hit. However, in this specific case, it appears that as of the current code, not many external contributions remain.
The author of the original issue in the meantime forked the repo and continued to document the issue there [1] as it was being constantly closed, but as is evident from his own `git blame` analysis, most of the contributions are from staff, and the external contributions are basically negligible.
There's one author with 30 LOC, one with 10 LOC, and the remaining 12 contributors average less then 4 LOC each.
[1] https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1#issuecom...
Could anyone comment here? What's the threshold for this?
We almost had to do this once for our own proprietary codebase as we discovered during due diligence that we didn't have a proper copyright transfer agreement from several of our interns. Fortunately we were able to resolve this with them (by paying them some extra money to sign a CLA), if it wouldn't have worked we would've removed and rewritten the code instead. It's silly but legally it's doable.
Of course this strategy doesn't work if a large part of your codebase originates from third-party contributors, but from my experience Github projects receive mostly small/cosmetic PRs from non-core developers (not saying that those contributions are not valuable btw).
One contributor decided to fork straight away and then link to it in an issue rather than adding a pull request. Eh, whatever, I didn't like it so much at the time but we came to an agreement, and the person who forked did a great job maintaining the theme.
It became popular enough that some more prolific emacsers caught wind, and the project became more integrated. As you might know, emacs is hardcore GPL, so this basically demanded a relicense. This was a few years after I started the project back in 2013 (I think), but I got pinged on the issue and messaged privately, and that was enough.
Turns out it wasn't necessary at the end of it all, but the process was quick and easy. Everything was cordial and I still have my name attached to it, which I guess is nice.
Not: Gratuitous (not contract) licenses are, by strong legal precedent, revocable by notice at will by the licensor. The content and context of the license (including the statement that it is irrevocable) may impact the effect given to revocation due to other legal principles, particularly promissory estoppel, but those are separate from revocability.
I'm not aware of any substantive distinction in the words "revocation", "termination", or the like, except with specific reference to 203. The question is whether you can show license if they plead infringement. In practice, they'll often plead breach, too.
Bare copyright licenses are largely theoretical here. If the terms of a unilateral grant include assurance of irrevocability, thats a strong fact for reliance and estoppel. If there's any question what the terms meant, it will be resolved by rules of contract construction, because it's not a public statute, and contract rules are the rules we have. There is a default rule, when the terms are silent, but it's just a default.
I have not been able to figure out why so few major ones do. Of the OSI approved licenses, I think the only ones that say so are AFL-3.0, AGPL-3.0, APL-1.0, APSL-2.0, Apache-2.0, CATOSL-1.1, ECL-2.0, EUDatagrid, EUPL-1.1, GPL-3.0, LiLiQ-P-1.1, LiLiQ-R-1.1, LiLiQ-Rplus-1.1, MulanPSL-2.0, NPOSL-3.0, OCLC-2.0, OSL-1.0, OSL-2.1, OSL-3.0, RPSL-1.0, SimPL-2.0, Simple-2.0, UCL-1.0, osl-1.0, osl-2.1, and the Unlicense.
Only AGPL, GPLv3, and Apache 2 from that list are really widely used.
Much less talked about than whether or not you can revoke a license, but probably as important for most open source licenses, is what happens if rather than trying to revoke the license you try to stop issuing new licenses?
Take GPLv2. Suppose I license some code I own to Alice under GPLv2. Later Alice gives a copy to Bob. Where does Bob's license come from?
GPLv2 says, "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions". GPLv3 has similar language.
If I say that I'm no longer going to issue licenses, and sue Bob for copyright infringement, what will his defense be?
He could argue that my license to Alice obligates me to issue a license to him. That falls under an area of law called the law of third party beneficiaries. Commonly you run into that in situations such as life insurance. I enter into a contract with a life insurance company to benefit specific third parties named in the contract, and that gives them some rights to sue to enforce the contract even though they are not a party to it.
I haven't seen much analysis of how the law of third party beneficiaries would work when applied to an open source license, but I'm not optimistic it would do much. Third party beneficiary rights tend to be weak at best if the third party is not a specific entity that the contract was made specifically to benefit. Someone downstream from Alice might be too vague to be a third party beneficiary, and it probably gets worse the farther downstream they are.
How about Alice? She could probably intervene to force me to honor my license to her and issue Bob a license. That's still going to put a damper on downstream redistribution. If you want to use the code without much legal worry, you'd need to make sure you got it from someone who would be willing to intervene if you got sued by me.
As with the revocation question, this too could be avoided be better drafting of the licenses. It's not a problem for Apache 2, for example, because the Apache 2 license grant is "a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form".
The key in there is "sublicense". When Alice gives Bob a copy, Bob can get his license directly from Alice via her use of the sublicensing right I gave her.
I think that the only widely used open source licenses that do this are Apache 2 and MIT.
The GPL family specifically says that you cannot sublicense. I think they did this because they did not want people using sublicensing to give out licenses that did not include all of the GPL rights. Better would have been to allow sublicensing but to explicitly say that when you sublicense you must include all the rights that were in the license you received from upstream.
There is some case law around that in France. A software company makes GPL software or library, a contracting firm uses/modifies it, reselling the result to some clients.
In 2 cases I am aware of, the final client was the government and sued the contracting firm for breach of contract (the GPL is a contract) and won. (Winning is relative of course because the client can't use the software they paid for anymore and years are passing by in court).
The contract creates a chain of contractual responsibility, which I am not an expert in, but as far as I understand it opens any party to being sued by any other party.
Yes it means that GPL developers, by giving an open contract to anybody who is willing to take it, are pretty much opening themselves to be sued by the entire world.
In practice you sue for a purpose (maximizing damages :D) so the purpose guides whom to pursue on which grounds.
Now to answer your question... what happens if you decide to cancel the license? Well, you can't unilaterally cancel a contract on a whim.
Since the entire issue is that gratuitous licenses are, as a matter of law, revocable by notice regardless of their surface conditions, no, it wouldn't.
Such terms may make downstream licensees more secure that, in the event of revocation, courts will limit the effect of that revocation to avoid them incurring undue loss based on their reasonable reliance on the promises in the licenses while it was being offered under principles like promissory estoppel, though.
Edit: it just occurred to me that even if that is true, its salience here might depend on what "gratuitous" means and whether it applies to the license in question. (I reiterate that IANAL, so usual cautions). Proponents of copyleft licenses would claim that licensor and -ee are both receiving value. The licensor receives the value of improvements and enhancements to their original work while the licensee gets access to the base system and permission to modify it to their needs as well as sharing the licensor's protections and value on their own contributions. There seems to be a plausible argument (reminder: IANAL!) that an exchange of value has occured.
The Blue Oak Model License takes reliability a step beyond even Apache 2 and GPLs, with an express statement of irrevocability (in plain terms) and an express statement that terms are both conditions and contractual obligations. https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0
If you're really down in the weeds, probably best to send me up an e-mail.
That would be the implication only if Linus was the sole copyright owner.
As it is, no one is asked to assign their copyright when contributing code to the Linux kernel, and the amount of code still remaining in the kernel that Linus has personally written himself is a rather small portion.
So if Linus were to "take his ball and go home" as it were, the affected code could be replaced.
That said, the multiplicity of contributors that retain their copyright to their contributions is also why relicensing the kernel to GPL 3 is largely a non-starter, even if Linus weren't opposed to it (and he is).
Note that "license" is a US concept that does not exist in Europe. Licenses here are systematically interpreted as full fledged contracts and fall under contract law.
Have to point out how this seemingly minor point in parenthesis really highlights how the comment is wrong and misplaced for a good chunk of the world.
P.S. Not trying to criticize here, just pointing out that copyright is vast and complex.
Well, English, long predating the US.
> that does not exist in Europe.
Well, it exists in the UK and, I'm fairly certain, Ireland.
> Licenses here are systematically interpreted as full fledged contracts and fall under contract law.
Do contracts in your jurisdictions not require mutual consideration or are licenses without mutual consideration facially defective? And is this gratuitous licenses in general don't exist or just in copyright?
European contracts (civil law) don't require consideration. Thus there's no need for a separate concept of license. (Allow me to skip the Europe vs UK debate for brevity ^^)
You can have a read at this article on a recent GPL court case in France, see section "French Law" that explains how some of the major differences https://thehftguy.com/2020/09/15/french-judge-rules-gpl-lice...
Guess I should write a dedicated article on licenses vs contracts so I can just point people to it. Is it something you would be interested in?
We do have rules for unilateral contracts and induced reliance, but they don't seem to come up much.
Artifex v Hancom also doesn't seem to offer much, since that there was a contract doesn't appear to be a point in dispute.
> ... The District Court found that Jacobsen had a cause of action only for breach of contract, rather than an action for copyright infringement based on breach of the conditions of the Artistic License. Because a breach of contract creates no presumption of irreparable harm, the District Court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. > > Jacobsen appeals the finding that he does not have a cause of action for copyright infringement. ...
The appellate court vacated and remanded.
In its analysis:
> Traditionally, copyright owners sold their copyrighted material in exchange for money. The lack of money changing hands in open source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic consideration, however. There are substantial benefits, including economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted works under public licenses that range far beyond traditional license royalties. For example, program creators may generate market share for their programs by providing certain components free of charge. Similarly, a programmer or company may increase its national or international reputation by incubating open source projects. Improvement to a product can come rapidly and free of charge from an expert not even known to the copyright holder. The Eleventh Circuit has recognized the economic motives inherent in public lenses, even where profit is not immediate. See Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188, 1200 (11th Cir.2001) (...).
Summing up the issue at bar:
> The heart of the argument on appeal concerns whether the terms of the Artistic License are conditions of, or merely covenants to, the copyright license.
In construing the terms of the license, the Federal Circuit explicitly references state contract law:
> Under California contract law, "provided that" typically denotes a condition.
Artifex v. Hancom is important in part because there wasn't any real dispute on contract enforcement. But the license at issue was GPLv2, whose author, the FSF, had long insisted it was just a license. From the terms:
> You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
In the order on motion for partial summary judgment, the court notes:
> The license was not free in the sense that there was no consideration owed under the agreement.
It then cites Jacobsen on "lack of money changing hands".
Later:
> Plaintiff gave away its Ghostscript program in consideration for the user making its software open source, which Defendant does not dispute it did not do. The record supports a finding that Defendant received a benefit (the use of Ghostscript) at Plaintiff's expense by depriving Plaintiff of the value of having Defendant's software open source.
> You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
There was activist fear about the dark power of contract law, as opposed to just copyright. And some political lobbying about the kinds of rules copyright owners should be able to impose and enforce under copyright law. They wanted to distinguish EULAs and NDAs—contract, bad—from licenses—good. Arguably, Moglen and friends were overtaken by legal decisions on both fronts.
Nimmer, our go-to treatise on copyright law, more openly acknowledges the deep links between copyright and contract law. Despite the fact that in the US, copyright law is federal (national) law and contract law is primarily state law.
For the vast majority of people and firms, all of this is political trivia.
Hypothetically if all the contributions were public domain code included in an AGPL project, then wouldn't the maintainer be within their rights to include those contributions in a closed-source version of the project?
Much of the discussion is assuming that because the project was AGPL, then the various contributions were AGPL as well. Whether or not that's the case is my question.
Note that the project currently doesn't state any license (there's no license.md). No idea if there was a license specified before when the contributions were made.
That a point of copyleft licenses. It's not a point of permissive licenses. Providing a certain degree of freedom to the direct licensee is the common shared point of open source licenses, permissive and copyleft.
Even very popular permissive licenses have been written with contribution front-and-center in mind. See, for example, the contribution-related terms of Apache 2. The definition of contribution. The built-in CLA. The compromise on scope of the patent grant.
1. Could you expand on how you asked the contributors and what reasons (and justifications) you gave them for it?
2. Didn’t they feel like their work was being “stolen” (sorry for using such an extreme word) for proprietary use?
IANAL, but this doesn't make much sense. Changing all lines that come from a single author can still result in a derivative work. In fact that even seems like a probable outcome, assuming that author's contributions were copyrightable in the first place.
If there are merge conflicts, it can be a lot of work for small (== no) gain, but it would put you in clear.
Barring something like a `git revert` (which depending on age of the commit might not even be possible), I would imagine a manual revert done to the best of your ability (followed by a rewrite) would be considered a good faith attempt.
Whether or not this would get you into legal trouble is left as an exercise to the reader. IA(also)NAL.
https://github.com/cregit/cregit https://lwn.net/Articles/698425/ https://cregit.linuxsources.org/
A copyright assignment gives power to the project owner to end up relicensing all those contributions as proprietary, effectively extracting free labor from contributions that were originally written under the implicit social contract of being part of the OSS community and all the Good Things that come with it.
I can't recall who it was now, but I remember reading about an open source project that makes considerable money from selling these licences, even though they weren't necessary (the licence was MIT). The licence even had an explanation around it stating (paraphrasing) "Hey, this isn't required, but if it makes you feel better, you can pay for it".
> The core SQLite database software is in the public domain. No license is necessary to use SQLite or to build SQLite into your products. However, licenses are available to satisfy the following needs:
> - You want indemnity against claims of copyright infringement.
> - You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the public domain.
> - You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the right of a authors to dedicate their work to the public domain.
> - You want to hold a tangible legal document as evidence that you have the legal right to use and distribute SQLite. Your legal department tells you that you have to purchase a license.
To be more specific. Public domain is intended to mean "after copyrights have expired". It is not a sort of license that can be put on a creation.
With the MIT licence they can distribute proprietary software based on your work and not have the source available, as this is not required with the MIT licence. So you have no way to get the changes or improvements other parties have made if they choose not to give them to you.
Take what I am saying with a pinch of salt, others can give a better explanation. I'd suggest looking it up yourself.
In the end, if they have opposition to the CAA, they don't sign it, and we make sure that we don't merge pull requests whose contributors have not signed the CAA.
You have a moral opposition to the concept of the CAA or a CLA, and that's perfectly fine, it just means you will not be able to contribute to NodeBB. Unfortunate, but our butts are protected and your rights are not potentially infringed upon.
To be clear though, the context was that you found your own work had included the work of others and THEN went out and sought their copyright assignment. This isn’t someone seeking contribution. I fail to see why they would agree to that.
Why wouldn't you rewrite all lines of code instead?
Imagine a person A worked on a project together with persons B, C..., and over time they all have dependence on each other code. If B, C etc. at some moment changed licensing of their code, but person A didn't, 1) A's work will become at least partially meaningless, as it depends on B, C... work 2) B, C... would be in violation of previous agreement with A (as at least some of their code depends on A's code).
Even worse, assume A doesn't want to significantly modify the project structure, and starts talking with B, C... asking them not to change the license. While it's formally possible to find last modifier for each line, it doesn't usually make much sense from programming logic point of view. So, NodeBB seem to get quite lucky getting everybody - at least everybody with complex contribution - simultaneously changing their license terms in accord. I'd assume in general it could be easier to rewrite all code.
Because we value the work our contributors have made to NodeBB. To rewrite to code would be (besides being hard) essentially to replace the attribution of the code from the original owner to a company employee, etc.
When a contributor assigns their contribution to us, we own it in a legal sense but we still very much want to let others know that they did it.
Obviously, it is unethical and most likely illegal to unilaterally, summarily claim copyright or relicense other people's contributions, and I appreciate the matter-of-fact tone taken by the issue opener and the other commenter.
However, I think it's obvious this isn't a scammer using open source as some kind of get-rich-quick scheme, putting in minimal effort into a fake open source project to attract highly valuable contributions in order to relicense them and make money off of other people's hard work. This someone who in all likelihood put blood, sweat, and tears into their project, gave it away for free on GitHub, accepted code contributions from people who in all likelihood were deriving a lot of value from Octotree (or else they wouldn't have had a pet issue they needed fixed in the first place), and has since grown frustrated by the time and effort costs, and the comparatively paltry returns.
Is their frustration causing them to lash out in a damaging and unproductive way? Certainly. Is it okay to renege on the implicit agreement with contributors that their contributions be under the terms of the AGPL license, and act as if those contributions were of negligible value? Certainly not. Is the maintainer right in their feeling that the value of those contributions is most likely less than the value given away for free to those contributors? I mean...probably.
I must really commend the noncombative, factual tone taken by the issue opener. And I hope the maintainer comes to their senses and deals with this problem the right way, by simply asking people nicely: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24954772
The thread has changed a lot since I first saw it, but right out of the gate the issuer opener was matter of fact and mostly respectful, and the maintainer called him a spammer and a troll and deleted his and other's stuff.
I can't imagine you could do much better if you wanted people to think you're The Bad Guy.
I just closed the repo I'm working on to the public and will not be making it Open Source moving forward as I originally intended. I've been through this before myself, and it's just best to leave my code unlicensed and copyrighted by me. I'm grateful this ugly beast reared its head and reminded me how much vitriol non-contributors can deliver.
I'm really sorry to hear that, and while it is obviously 100% up to you, I hope you to reconsider.
Every contribution to The Commons furthers the public good. Unlike the busybodies who care more about lecturing people about following the "rules" of "Open Source" to the letter, than about the spirit of fostering contributions to The Commons to further the public good, you clearly understand what actually matters.
Don't let the annoying minority keep you from doing something you know will make a positive difference in the world. If you set clear boundaries and stay matter-of-fact, the public overall will back you.
In the same spirit as the 4 "non-Free-Culture" Creative Commons licenses, I encourage you to check out non-open-source PolyForm software licenses, including a noncommercial license, a free trial license, etc: https://github.com/polyformproject/polyform-licenses#license...
Every contribution to The Commons furthers the public good, regardless of whether it's technically "Open Source" according to the Debian mailing list.
Not only my issue got closed as a "spam", my account now has been blocked by "their organization". http://ix.io/2CCK/text
I really hope Github's learning and (job) recommendation algorithms do not take this into account.
https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1#issuecom...
Obviously we're a bit in uncharted territory and there's some nuances and things vary by jurisdiction, it should be receivable one way or another, and it would take 10 years in court to really determine it.
That's exactly where shit gets really complicated ^^
1) The software couldn't be relicensed in the first place because there are parts for which they don't own the copyright. Can't relicense something you don't worn. The attempt to change the license of the software is void at best.
2) The AGPL is contagious, forcing all future contributions to be AGPL as well. Their claim that contributions started being under another license at some point is void, because these contributions were necessarily under AGPL.
Notice there's an interesting conundrum in how the two elements interact and create a deadlock. It's on purpose, the GPL/AGPL is meant to prevent relicensing.
It's copyright violations all over the place. There's gotta be a thousand and one ways to make them accountable. You could personally start redistributing/reselling the software assuming it's AGPL so you get some grounds and go after them for saying it's not.
I think you accidentally read some old Microsoft or new Google propaganda somewhere.
Github is becoming too powerful.
Thus, that said, as a completely disinterested party, the Octotree maintainer really does appear to be doing his best to come off as The Bad Guy. All of his behavior in the relevant Github issues looks like someone who is having a tantrum and wanting to take his ball and go home.
So, while I pretty much totally agree with everything you've written, especially the part about "I must really commend the noncombative, factual tone taken by the issue opener" it's also hard for me to fault others who are letting their annoyance show when simple, factual requests are met with tirades of assholery.
They said that they had conducted a complete rewrite. There is no reason to do this other than to mislead and create a self-serving false narrative.
The "deceit" is saying whatever to get people to go away, not to hurt anyone, or to profit off of anyone else's hard work. The right thing to do is just to ask people to assign copyright (see eg https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24954772 ), but lacking the maturity do what a responsible adult needs to do is just immaturity, not malice.
This person just wants everyone to go away. It's disrespectful to the community, ill-mannered, and utterly graceless, but I find it hard to call it malicious.
Based on package.json only one author mentioned, Buu Nguyen <buunguyen@gmail.com>
[1]https://github.com/ovity/octotree/blob/master/package.json
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention
[2]: https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2017/10/03/with-copyright-wh...
2) The Berne convention is a farce, it doesn't define what's supposed to be enforced or how. It's up to each European country to do their own thing.
You really can't say that copyright is anything settled or mutually recognized across the world. It's quite a mess and it's really complicated.
Assume it's true and consider what it can lead to. Person A writes code under GPL. Person B extends that code significantly, also under GPL. Person A relicenses his code to a closed source.
Now person B, of course, is the rightful owner of his own extensions, but they don't make sense without person A's code. So suddenly person B's work greatly decreases in value.
I'd assume it's not as simple as just relicensing one's own code; other contributions, depending on that, should be taken into account. Or you can't just relicense.
1. Person A writes project X under GPL
2. Person B extends project X under GPL
3. Person A removes all traces of contributions from project X and releases under non-GPL
4. Person B rightfully continues to use project X under GPL, possibly even hosting a fork and continuing collaboration.
(I'm not sure if step 3 is feasible - while person A is free to use their own copyrighted work however they please, it might not be possibly to legally erase all trace of foreign contributions.)
---
What normally should happen is that Person A needs to contact all contributors, and have them agree to the relicense their contributions. If all authors agree, then there is no issue. However, step 4 still applies - everyone receiving the code under GPL is free to keep using (and distributing) it under GPL.
Only contributions done to the relicensed work will be uniquely protected by the new license.
Nothing can change the fact that version 1 was released under the terms of the GPL, but that does not mean you can use version 2 released under different terms.
Edit: this is assuming the maintainer is the primary author of the code. The current guidance from the FSF and other organizations that you need support from the authors of 95% of the work.
Indeed ...
> ... maintainers of major projects (including GNU, IIRC) frequently require copyright assignment as a requirement for copyrightable contributions.
... and many folks, including myself, refuse to agree to any such agreements.
Personally, I'd prefer BSD, MIT, or similar anyways but... if a project is GPL, one of the best ways to ensure that it remains GPL is for individual contributors to retain their copyright on any contributions.
Take those paragons of open source, VMware [0] and the "open-vm-tools" [1] project, for example. For a variety of reasons, various components are under different licenses:
> The code is being released under GPL v2 and GPL v2 compatible licenses. To be more specific, the Linux kernel modules are being released under the GPL v2, while almost all of the user level components are being released under the LGPL v2.1. The SVGA and mouse drivers have been available under the X11 license for quite some time. There are certain third party components released under BSD style licenses, to which VMware has in some cases contributed, and will continue to distribute with open-vm-tools.
Okay, so it sounds like it's all open source and should remain that way so I shouldn't have any concerns about contributing bugfixes, enhancements, patches, etc., right? Wait for it...
> Do I need to sign something before making a contribution?
> Yes. We have a standard contribution agreement that covers all contributions made to the project. It gives VMware and you joint copyright interests in the code you are contributing. The agreement also gives VMware flexibility with licensing and also helps avoid any copyright/licensing related issues that may arise in the future.
There it is. Nice choice of wording, by the way: it gives VMware "flexibility" with licensing and "helps avoid any copyright/licensing related issues".
VMware certainly is fond of "flexibility with licensing"' as history has shown.
--
Besides all of the other arguments, I think it's completely absurd that an individual should be required to enter into a one-sided legal agreement with a large corporation just to contribute some code -- even just two or three lines -- that they've already written and just want to give away.
--
[0]: That's sarcasm, just to be clear!
Similarity like Qt software company doing the relicenced thing and Illumos project keeping latest-before-relicenced software.
It would however be possible for person A to remove all contributions of person B (and possibly rewrite the same functionality).
All copyright holders must agree in order to relicense unless all such holders signed a contributor license agreement which signs over all rights to the original author, and as multiple contributions have been made.
Every single contributor must be contacted, and they must all agree.
(Also, of course note that relicensing does not invalidate previous licenses - if I have a copy from when it was under AGPL, then nothing will ever change that.)
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/571775195745091624/77... the last additional comment deleted before locking, link to the mentioned fork https://github.com/zacanger/octotree/
https://web.archive.org/web/20201031182128/https://github.co...
Thread mirror: (contained in the archived GitHub issue) https://i.imgur.com/mo8ZJkd.png
Last additional comment: (missing from the archive) https://i.imgur.com/Kq2IEfN.png
That's like saying that imgur images are deleted when you delete them.
Years ago Discord wouldn't delete images uploaded as part of a post, they'd just get garbage-collected at some random future time. (And some would leak indefinitely) Thus, people got used to sharing these around and not caring about the original message.
Now it's near-instant as the message delete operation sends a Google Cloud delete API immediately. But people still share these around without knowing that. We don't know where those links originated so it's both a disclaimer and a mirror.
> This is not true. If it was true, just use the code from master and make the "small changes" yourself and stop with the spams, simple, isn't it?
Completely ignoring that they are stealing other's contributions that were AGPL licensed to use in their proprietary application.
Even worse in the now deleted comment where they pull a "we didn't, but if we had it would have been fine", which is pretty obviously the defence of a guilty party.
Edit: Now they are claiming that they paid "most" of the other developers who contributed, further underlining the fact that they don't have the copyright for at least some of those code they are using.
This is precisely why even if you accept 5 lines of code from someone else (and they're not willing to get compensation from you), you can't change the license of that code. This is what CLAs are for. (IANAL)
Does it matter if the change is to a more or less restrictive licence, or just any change?
And no, it doesn't matter what the new license is.
Even if you are totally innocent, you've made yourself look like an asshole at best, but really, really guilty at worst with the way you are handling this.
> The old source code in master is no longer under AGPL because it's been the reason of this week's trolling comments
"I re-licensed code you wrote without permission because some other people were trolling me." is certainly an interesting admission, even if you take "trolling" at face value, when they appear to use it to mean "calling out our breaking of the license".
These guys just appear to go from bad to worse, ignorantly making shit up as they go (on a road to certain self-destruction, if you'd ask me).
Also, why don't I hear more people about how GitHub was used to not at all host any code, but instead only as a (marketing) referral point for proprietary stuff somewhere else? I said goodbye to GitHub a while ago, so I wasn't aware this this had become acceptable practice.
Anyways, if this was a court case .. this would probably be the point where a judge would look these fellows straight in the eyes and say something along the lines of: "With arrogant behavior you so clearly displayed, you yourselves have squandered any of the sympathy, lenience, and benefit of a doubt I usually give to defendants, and will hereby sentence you to the harshest possible punishment. Not only to give a clear indication that your behavior is in no way acceptable. But also to serve as a reminder for any future parasites, whenever they think of making up their own rules as they see fit".
Either way, I think this shit is going to haunt these guys. Unless I got it all completely wrong, probably well deserved too.
The maintainer looks embarrassed and is doubling down, has not had an opportunity to save face and this looks quite humiliating. Gah. We have to let people save face, maybe several times. A public discussion like this is just awful.
- ## Credits
-
- Octotree uses the following open-source software:
-
- - [jQuery](https://github.com/jquery/jquery)
- - [jQuery UI](https://github.com/jquery/jquery-ui)
- - [jstree](https://github.com/vakata/jstree)
- - [file-icons-js](https://github.com/websemantics/file-icons-js)
- - [keymaster](https://github.com/madrobby/keymaster)
- - [jquery-pjax](https://github.com/defunkt/jquery-pjax)
- - [github-dark](https://github.com/StylishThemes/GitHub-Dark)
[0]: https://github.com/ovity/octotree/commit/c8010802f5f04bd3f52...
--
EDIT: Fixed URL.
How badly does someone need to misunderstand a topic to write something like this? No one mentioned charging being bad.
I absolutely buy some people were shitty about them deciding to create a commercial product. That in no way justifies stealing from others who contributed to the project, which is the reality here.
100x this. I'm super supportive of them making a living via a commercial product, especially one based on AGPL code. My only frustration is that they're pretending that it isn't AGPL code and refusing to respect the contributors whose code they're using.
But what I don't get is: how do you even know this with such confidence? How do you know they don't have some legal agreement with those people? How do you even know they didn't contact those contributors? How do you know the other contributors' contributions weren't trivial enough (for all I know they could've even just been formatting/indentation) and not warranting any action? How do you know the contributors aren't fine with it?
And how does everyone somehow know other contributors want them to seek some sort of justice on their behalf?
Because instead of saying "yes it's based on the AGPL code, I have consent" they're saying "no it's not based on the AGPL code, it's a complete rewrite", which is an easily provable lie.
The minified JavaScript has tons of 1:1 copies of the AGPL code, clear as day (example: https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1#issuecom...), and the maintainer is deleting any comment that mentions the clear evidence.
> Because instead of saying "yes it's based on the AGPL code, I have consent" they're saying "no it's not based on the AGPL code, it's a complete rewrite", which is an easily provable lie.
First, note that no one has any obligation to you (or me) to reveal any of their contracts or business dealings. It's not our business, quite literally. It is (or was, earlier in the discussion) entirely possible they have a license, the parties are fine with it, and they just don't want the rest of the world to know or care.
Second, you literally have contributors themselves starting to come to defend him against you:
> I’m @{name} in your CC list and I was hired to work on Octotree. I’m no longer involved, but I was there when we rewrote Octotree. Just so you know.
Is it possible some people may have been wronged here? Sure. Is it possible they haven't? Yes. We don't know, but even before you even knew some were paid and all that, you'd already leveled an accusation against them of bad faith and gotten people all across the world piling on. Given you've gotten at least part of this wrong so far, one would think maybe a less confidence in your accusation might've in fact been warranted, especially given you're just a bystander?
This is total nonsense. The code was licensed, publicly, under AGPL. Like the GP said, they could have easily said it's based on the AGPL code and they have consent, but you seem to be OK with the maintainer lying that it's a total rewrite.
No it's not.
> The code was licensed, publicly, under AGPL.
Yeah, and unless they depend on similarly licensed code that imposed restrictions on them (in which case someone should mention this to the maintainer in the beginning so he knows he has a legal obligation he's not fulfilling), it can be taken down and/or licensed differently moving forward however the contributors want to, without them owing you, me, or anybody else a notification or explanation.
Even whom exactly that set of people is is not your business (nor mine). They may well not even want to divulge their relationships with each other to you, and they would have every right not to want to. You're neither a party to the matter, nor their lawyer, nor part of law enforcement, to try to seek justice on their behalf. If you're trying to be helpful, you can notify them privately and let them deal with it, or see if they want you to help. If they have a problem, they'll follow up. If they don't, that's the end of it. You can save your pitchfork for problems you're actually a party to.
> Like the GP said, they could have easily said it's based on the AGPL code and they have consent
Or they could have not, because it's quite literally their business, and not your business to intervene (or mine).
> but you seem to be OK with the maintainer lying that it's a total rewrite.
No, this is what's complete nonsense. There are a heck of a lot of things I'm not OK with in this world, but I hold my peace on most of them and let those who are responsible deal with it. The fact that you don't see me trying to publicly crucify everyone who's ever lied to me does not mean I'm OK with people lying. It just means I don't think that every time someone does something wrong it is or should be my business to take justice in my own hands and get the rest of the world to publicly wreck them.
This is not the behavior of an innocent person respecting the software's license. It's the behavior of a very guilty person. Or a clown. Or both.
That sounds like bullying. That wouldn't be okay either.
Even if they would actually be fine with it, a ticket saying "ask them!" is a valid issue.
It's fair for people to not like this because the contributors were not made aware of this. Thus the only people who were wronged did not even know of it.
I've started a new GH discussion here: https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/octotree/priv...
Can anyone else confirm?
Of these ten people, six were hired to work on Octotree, so he should have copyright for those. The other four together wrote less than 100 lines of code. If he has removed or rewritten these lines, he should be fine. (Even if he hasn't, I would consider this a very minor violation.)
Anyways, it's frustrating that the author is kinda acting a bit scummy for something that might not have been even a problem. If he was a bit patient and had just got permission from those people beforehand... (I don't really think any of those 10 people would object to it since the commits aren't that big, unless one of them is a free software movement purist perhaps) And people generally agree on Mozilla's "95% author coverage" line so I think this controversy might have been a bit overblown.
Well, now what? I bet nothing will happen -- the only way these licensing violations pique the lawyers' interest is when they are perpetrated by a high profile company with some money in the bank.
Well, if they don't fulfill the license conditions and keep distributing theirs they're violating copyright. Would a DMCA takedown from one of the authors be valid?
Bonus question, since mozilla has made themselves the single trust root of all addons, could one request that they refuse code-signing (something something contributory infringement) of the extension as part of the DMCA process?
Well there's this: https://web.archive.org/web/20160726212936/https://github.co...
That's probably a much worse outcome for Buu than a DMCA notice or otherwise.
The only people who do are those who contributed to the project under the understanding that their contributions were covered under the main license.
Of course a major issue is that such projects often accept submissions from other people, which creates major headaches if a change a license is later sought.
Edit: an issue that it is very often not discussed or clear on what basis people can make contributions, and I think that the default position must be that they retain the copyright over their contributions (but is it implied what licensing they are agreeing with?)
Edit 2: I understand that he is not the the sole author, but that does not make anything I wrote incorrect or irrelevant. A lot of drama for some reason...
Absolutely, but he isn't the sole author: https://github.com/ovity/octotree/graphs/contributors
I'd imagine that he knows this, which is why he's pretending that the proprietary Octotree is a "complete rewrite".
From your link the contributions do not look huge so it seems that removing them is quite doable.
Example: https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1#issuecom...
If the maintainer wants to remove the AGPL without copyright infringement, I think they'd need to delete most/all of pjax.js and have someone else write a clean-room implementation that isn't built on contributions from someone else.
The reason people do cleanroom is to eliminate risk of liability, it's simple, and it's foolproof. You can't mess it up. It also eliminates other potential issues (like tortious interference with someone who signed an NDA).
Legally, it's overkill. It's like using a thermonuclear bomb to swat a fly.
If you're going up against Microsoft, overkill absolutely makes sense; you might be legally right, but it will take millions of dollars in legal fees to show that. Programmers are cheaper than lawyers.
In the general case, though, you can just rewrite the old code and be done with it. Yourself. Looking at the old code too, so long as you don't borrow it. You want to be a little bit careful since it's not just the literal words (you can break copyright on a novel if you rewrite the same plot in your own words; same thing with code), but "a little careful" suffices.
It's a bit harder to transform a piece of code into something non-infringing, rewriting section-by-section, but most lawyers say that's not impossible either.
(Of course, clearly, none of that happened in this case)
[1] https://github.com/ovity/octotree/graphs/contributors
[2] Not to diminish the effort of submitting even a one-line PR, just in the sense of "de minimis" in terms of copyrightability.
If that's the case, this raises two questions:
(a) How do they know a priori that the project owner hasn't cleared the license (maybe via a contract that they have no interest in publicly disclosing, or by believing [for whatever reason] they're too minor/fair use), and
(b) Why are so many bystanders piling on and stirring up conflict in public trying to cancel this guy? Wouldn't it make sense to just let concerned contributors speak for themselves?
1. That wasn't what was being challenged. The challenge was whether there was, in fact, a "complete rewrite", since the output files matched the AGPL source 1:1.
2. Do you mean me (Christian Bundy)? I asked a question because I was unhappy seeing the maintainer lie to one of my friends about the "complete rewrite". Lies bad, truth good. The licensing is the reason for the lie, not the reason for the investigation.
Second, let's just assume he had bad faith and lied about it being a complete rewrite; I don't know, but for all I know he might have. It's possible he's been trolled a lot by other people recently (sounds like he has, though I haven't checked the history) and he thought lying would get people to stop. Or maybe he's an awful guy. I have no idea. In any case, unless they had a dependency with a viral license, have distributed something based on that dependency, and that dependency's license required them to provide source code with it... they simply don't have any obligation to provide you with any source code, in which case you still wouldn't get anywhere, right? Are there such grounds for you being entitled to the source code at all? If there are, it seems this should be mentioned explicitly in the beginning so he understands he has an actual obligation he's not already fulfilling?
> 2. Do you mean me (Christian Bundy)? I asked a question because I was unhappy seeing the maintainer lie to one of my friends about the "complete rewrite". Lies bad, truth good.
In (2) you're referring to (b) in my post, right? I actually didn't mean you (I meant everyone else on the internet who just piled onto your post afterward), because I didn't think that's something you had control over, but now I'm seeing you're the one who specifically went out of your say to submit the post on HN too... which is begging for people to pile on and cancel this guy because you (or I guess your friend) didn't get the source code you wanted. All because you (who apparently aren't even the person who was wronged?) are upset because you think he lied to one of your friends, and you think contributors who might be ones to have a stake in this might also be on your side and might want you (whom they don't even know) to seek vigilante justice on their behalf? Isn't this how Twitter justice works...? Do we really need this on HN? Is this kind of public cancellation really making the world a better place?
If I distributed the linux kernel with a text document stating I was the sole author it wouldn't make it so. The author wont suffer legal consequences unless someone with a stake in the matter proves in a court of law where all the appropriate protections apply but the court of public opinion is both more fond of drama and less kind. To answer (b) first people are speculating on this topic for the same reason people follow news stories that have zero chance of ever effecting their lives because it has piqued their interest. Describing this as "canceling" reveals more about your perspective than it does about the issue.
To answer the more substantial (a) the facts on the ground seem to suggest that the author is sputtering, floundering, and lying. He lied about it being a rewrite. He lied about it being "ok" even if it wasn't a rewrite (which is it?) After saying he had rewritten it all he then said it was ok because he had either written or paid for "most" of the original code to be rewritten when it ought to be obvious that "most" wouldn't be strictly correct in any case.
The obvious conclusion is that he broke or didn't understand the law in the first place and never chose to hire someone who did or took their advice.
Why defend this?
Up until 30 minutes ago, I was an octotree customer. Do I have standing? Do I need someone's permission to care about this? I'm not a concerned contributor; I'm a former supporter now concerned with what my subscription has enabled. I cannot address the money that is already under the bridge, but I can certainly stop dropping it in the river.
I'm not upset about the question re: AGPL inclusion, I'm upset about the very, very poor series of answers and actions by the maintainer, whatever form they've individually taken.
Should the whole mess of a posteri license reassignment get addressed cogently and comprehensively, I'll reconsider. Even a mea culpa would be sufficient, should it be followed by Doing The Right Thing[s].
No, you don’t. Only people who wrote any of the code would have standing.
No, and I'd reply to your points, but I'm quite offended by your comment (and you're breaking the site rules).
This whole thing left a very sour taste in my mouth...
APGL on the other hand requires more upfront thought about how you're going to organize the project in general and what you might do with it later on.
So no changing the license per say. But no way from a binary to tell if this has been adhered to.
That is a very odd framing of the choice. Using the MIT license is not a zero-sum game. If AppGooFaceSoft choose to use your software without paying you anything, the only costs would exist within your own mind and depend entirely on your beliefs, not some external standard.
I cannot achieve my goals with MIT license.
I think the developers who change the licenses of this repo have bad faith and yes, I agree, they deeply misunderstood the licenses or they planned all along to ride the 'free software' banner for adoption to then make money out of it. They could have done it in a more elegant way.
On the contrary, GPL and especially AGPLv3 gives the developers better protection than permissive ones:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-software_license#Comparis...
There's the WTFPL License (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL) but that doesn't seem like a great option either. For my project (https://github.com/argosopentech/argos-translate) I dual licensed under the MIT and CC0 licenses even though CC0 isn't really designed for software but it seemed reasonable. It seems surprisingly difficult to release code with no conditions besides limiting liability.
(Perhaps he just means that he's supportive but doesn't care enough to pursue it alone - absolutely fair enough if that's the case, not trying to suggest he should do something, just checking my understanding.)
[0] - https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1#issuecom...
That's my non-lawyer understanding of why Drew needs a contributor to start a lawsuit.
The behavior strongly suggests the code is stolen.
Since it is free software, many user-friendly changes are possible that tend to conflict with commercial interests. (Indeed, someone already made a post about the author's privacy policy changes, making the commercial software less valuable with zero lines of code.)
While the author may make a few bucks, that kind of thing will not pass any due diligence, so his success may be quite limited.
for f in $(git ls-files); do git blame --line-porcelain $f | sed -n 's/^author //p'; done | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn 53442 Buu Nguyen 1730 NDQ 102 Phi Nguyen 77 Fahme Bnchi 57 An Le Phu Nguyen 52 Will Simons 30 Jacob Dreesen 18 Danh Nguyen 11 Samvel Abrahamyan 10 Rico 10 duylam 6 Xiao Tan 6 Fiete Börner 5 Steven Noto 4 Ahmed El Sayegh 3 GyuYong Jung 3 Duy Lam 2 Yuichi Tanikawa 2 Andrew Levine 1 Zac Anger 1 Kevin Conaway 1 Ephemera 1 Brightcells
This is a witch hunt if you ask me.
> Additionally, source code submissions to mailing lists such as pgsql-hackers are considered submissions to the PostgreSQL project, falling under the project's PostgreSQL licence. Please make sure you have permission to share information with these lists before sending your message.
The author of this repo has blocked me from using GitHub's native fork functionality because I so much as suggested that I planned to fork Octotree due to the author retroactively making existing features paid.
First, you have to have standing meaning the only people who have any claim or could take action would be the "other contributors".
At that point, the best likely path forward would be a claim of partial ownership resulting in a DCMA takedown request.
However, the vast majority of contributions to this repo are insignificant one liner commits. While a nuisance for the repo owner, those commits could likely be undone and re-implemented.
That leaves it up to a handful of more active participants to take any action (likely DCMA related).
I would be shocked if anyone (other than with support from the FSF) takes actual legal action other than a cease and desist letter.
Even then, finding an interested prosecutor/attorney is going to be a challenge. By some estimates only 1 in 100k software crimes are ever prosecuted and some guy who stole 100 commits by changing an open source license is not one of them.
I believe any user should be able to raise a claim, the software is deceitful and violating its license which raise a number of problems.
One problem though is that the software doesn't indicate a license at all. I can think of multiple angles of attack if they were reselling it or distributing it under another license (MIT/BSD/GPL/other), that'd instantly give you the right to sue them, but because it doesn't have any license and doesn't claim anything, I don't know.
It could probably be considered to be defacto AGPL since the AGPL is contagious so there's nothing to complain about. It's tricky ^^
edit: The other thing is what's the purpose of attacking? You attack for a purpose, usually damages and/or shutting down the project. There's nothing to gain here. For reference the last GPL cases I've seen were self-defeating for the defendants, the user/customer/client sue the contractor/company/vendor who gave them modified GPL software, the defendant wins but loses the right to use the software they paid for, which is dumb!
This isn’t true, though... they aren’t violating their license, they changed the license. You are allowed to change a license for code you wrote at any time.
The only issue is if they included other code that was licensed, either via a PR written by someone else that they merged or via a dependency that was licensed.
You can’t violate your own license... even if I write code and release it as GPL, I am free to use a modified version in my own proprietary code (again, as long as you don’t use code licensed by someone else)
However, only those 60 people have a dog in this fight (or legally only they have "standing"). It is up to one of them to do "something" as none of us (anyone other than those 60) have any sort of actionable claim other than to shame them. You and I might not like the fact that they are altering / violating the license but that is moot.
It would be a civil matter, so prosecutors would not be involved.
Finding an attorney isn't hard assuming you are willing to pay for one.
Without financial/legal support from someone like the FSF, the only way this would proceed is if the aggrieved parties were independently wealthy or could find a lawyer to take the case pro bono.
Of course, in a normal situation, I imagine no one would care unless they'd contributed a significant amount. Acting this way sure seems like the best way to get someone to persue it on principle though.
Would it be OK to re-submit it?
https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1#issuecom...
I mean "fair use" is an acceptable thing (situation dependent) for other copyright things (music, video, books).
Wonder if it might be application to software code for some situations?
What the guy here did is to disregard all of this and relicense it autonomously.
And then, if sued, coutersue for breaching agpl.
(To be fair though, in this case AGPL and GPL would function the same)
Lesson learned regarding source licenses tho: only use copy-left licenses if you don't enjoy getting paid for your work.
There are also lessons to be learned about conflict resolution, particularly about the consequences of escalating a conflict.
The other contributors were mentioned in the issue before it was sterilized:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/571775195745091624/77...
Anyone is free to continue with the last GPL drop, but from that point on they’re on their own