Hacker News Reader

100% agreed with you...would be safest for everyone to take this stance going forward. I do think, and I could be wrong, that not everyone realized that the licensing worked this way. Or had their guard up when contributing. I think that's the issue...perhaps their fault, perhaps not, but I see the issue.

I wonder if this will be an example moving forward that people keep in mind when contributing to any OSS project

View on HN

Doesn't this mean that people will be more cautious and less likely to contribute on the long run? I mean that feels like it is against the spirit of open source movement. And yes I realize that this is idealistic position and the legal aspects gets the upper hand at the end. I just wish things didn't go this way.

I imagine so...I wonder if its possible to draft an open-source license that commits future versions of the project to be drafted under the same license. Maybe AGPL does this (?) I know AGPL applies to all "modifications", I wonder if that applies to modifications done by the maintainers themselves in the future. If so, maybe we'll see AGPL-like provisions becoming more popular in order to help folks feel more confident

Any copyleft license should so that so long as there's no CLA / transfer of copyright.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com