And saying this doesn't make any sense. Because being opensource means lack of vendor lock-in. There's no "dependency". As soon as a new license is adopted, the users of the previous version can still use that previous version because it is still opensource, and create a fork out of it.
Can they technically? If nobody stored a copy of the code, and the copyright owner decides to change the license, any subsequent copies are under the terms of the new license no?
But that’s beside the point. If someone releases software without storing the whole build in configuration management, then I don’t feel particularly sorry for them.
And they could delete the repository. Even if they had a repository, as the copyright holders they could change the license retroactively. This is not a problem with a technical solution that I can see.
I hope they have very good lawyers, then. I'm not sure how they could enforce that.
> And they could delete the repository.
That's why I said what I said about configuration management.
I guess CM is no longer en vogue, these days. A main goal of CM, is to completely reproduce the build, from stored components, at any point in the product lifecyle.
With a lot of SaaS services, I guess that it's not really possible to do that, anymore, but I'd be pretty leery of basing a business on ephemeral resources. I'd at least get a maintenance or local duplication contract with the author.
Why? Like I said, unless someone has a copy obtained with the original license, then any subsequent copies are accepted with the new license. There's nothing in the law that says the copyright holder can't change the license.
See my comment about "configuration management."
I'm sorry. If someone wants to call themselves an "engineer," then they need to act like an engineer, and that means things like good configuration management. In my opinion, and I'm just an unlettered redneck, self-taught cowboy, so I guess my opinion ain't worth squat, the term "engineer" connotes things like rigorous self-discipline, process discipline, and personal integrity.
Just the thought of someone releasing commercial, or commercial-grade software, without CM, sends chills down my spine. I guess that it's a statement on the current state of the industry, that people assume that CM is something that is "optional."
This would be great for patent troll law firms.