Hacker News Reader

Comment by igetspam | Hacker News Reader

It sucks to have to agree with someone that you don't fundamentally agree with but I think the author of the PR is correct. This is a modification of the Apache license and while I appreciate and support their stance, it does seem to mean that the license is non compliant. I support anyone's desire to protest things (no matter which side I'm on) but you can't just make up your own rules.

View on HN

How exactly do you fundamentally disagree with the author of the PR? He literally did no statements beyond saying that this is not an Apache License anymore.

The author of the module disagrees with the author of the PR that adding this additional restriction does not make the project Apache License anymore.

Thanks for the explanation. English is not my native language and I read the comment as if the commenter had fundamental disagreements with the author of the PR but had to agree with him on this particular point about license terms.

English is my native language and I also read it that way!

You're right. I disagree with those who would not accept the license modifications as truth because I support them but the author of the PR did not state their political stance.

> but you can't just make up your own rules

Sure you can. Your project, your rules.

Well its not his license.

Is the license itself copyrighted? If so for how long?

Apache is trademarked

Sure, but you can't make up your own definition of the Apache 2.0 license, which was the point of the original comment (and the PR in question).

Yes you can:

"You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License." [0]

https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html

Sure, but that doesn't mean he can redefine terms. He can't both change the license and claim it's compliant with that license. That contradiction exists regardless of his ownership of the project.

I have updated the wording. It was and will be the same Apache 2 license.

You fundamentally agree with the person who opened the issue on the issue of license, that's the only thing that matters here.

He is right, the changed license is discriminatory.

Older commits can be used freely, so not a big deal for a while at least and by then someone can fork the code.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com