Slashdot Mirror
SQL-Ledger Relicensed, Community Gagged
Ashley Gittins writes "Users of the popular accounting package SQL-Ledger were being kept in the dark about a recent license change. Two weeks ago a new version of the software was released but along with it came the silent change of license from GPLv2 to the 'SQL-Ledger Open Source License' — presumably in an effort to prevent future forks like LedgerSMB. As it turns out, the author was making deliberate attempts to prevent the community from finding out about the license change. No posts to the SQL-Ledger mailing lists asking about the license change were getting past moderation and direct questions to the author were going unanswered. Just recently the license was switched back to GPLv2. This behavior is not a first for this particular project, and is part of the reason for the original LedgerSMB fork. Does a project maintainer have an ethical obligation to notify his or her community of a license change? What about a legal obligation?"
If the author is the sole author and/or owns all the copyrights, then they can do what ever they like. If, however, they have accepted third party submitions then they may have a legal obligation to remain GPLv2
Legally you don't have to announce your business decisions in advance, ethically well... I can understand why you wouldn't, the day you came out and said it the GPL version is as good as yours - no reason to switch. You'd want to have some sort of carrot "New version with $foo and $bar" so people would actually change. Everyone producing anything OSS is entitled to stand up at any moment and say "Screw this, I'm going to try making money off it", assuming it's all their code of course. If you want reliability and future commitment, perhaps you should pay for it? As long as you rely on volunteer contributions you haven't really got a leg to stand on, should they disappear in a puff of smoke.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Forcing people to accept a change in the license without telling them? Definitely unethical - kind of like forcing people to accept Windows Genunie Advantage if you want patches.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
No. There's only a problem if someone made a fork and tried to change it from GPL to something else. This was a move by the guy who holds the copyrights to the code. the copyright holder can, at anytime, decide he wants to move his code to another license. the catch is that all previously released code is still under the previous license. That is, if i release Foobar v1 under the GPL, then I release Foobar v1.1 under BSD, v1.0 remains licensed under the GPL, and you are free to take that code and start your own version, Forkbar v1.0. However, you must always keep it as GPL, because you don't own the copyright on the code; you only have access to it because of the GPL.
my pet machine
The author of the work can always release his work under any license he sees fit. The problem would be any code contributed by others in this case.
c++;
The community being gagged refers to the fact that their messages were dropped from the associated mailing list. You probably didn't read the article, huh?
So the lesson is:
Never, ever, ever buy third party libraries without source. Without source you no longer own the solution you create. I have seen it happen many times before and these days I put a lot of pressure of the library vendor with the hard rule, "No source no Sale". Many of these third party library providers have gone out of business or shifted focus to other products. Without source I would be in trouble.
Never, ever, ever buy any software at all that licenses against a specific set of hardware.
Lately I more often contemplating switching OS to get away from the worst black box of all... "Windows" With Vista and the brain dead security rules introduced it becomes impossible to write software.
That only applies if he hasn't accepted any outside submissions and therefore is the copyright holder of the code or has had all copyrights assigned to him.
"That doesn't mean I don't feel sorry for the original author, but I think he may need a bit of a spokesperson between him and the rest of the world.."
Deiter may have switched the license back to GPLv2, but at this point, why bother ... he's done more to promote the competing fork as being the "legit, safe" one than anything else.
* Retroactively re-license existing versions from the GPL to the new version: * Unlaterally re-license code that includes third part submissions, since most of the translation packages were done by user submission.
Ignoring those two actions, even if the license change is strictly legal, it's downright underhanded to pull a stunt like he did. He didn't just change the license on his software; he put out a point release on the primary distribution site, after having changed the license terms included with the package, then refused to let anyone bring it up on the official support mailing list. How many of us would notice if we downloaded and installed the lastest apache or postfix or whatever, and the license had silently and magically changed to a closed one?
It gets a little more sticky too when you try to relicense code like this. Outside contributors who submitted patches may have objections to the GPL code they donated being changed without their permission.
True, that's why most projects require you to assign copyright for your contributions to them.
Which could be problematic - since the copyright holder could decide to release the code under a non-GPL license as well; make revisions to that and be under no license obligation to make them available under the GPL. Granted, most projects wouldn't do that but it's still a possibility.
Also, assigning the copyright limits the creator's ability to resell their code seperately should someone want to use it in a non-GPl'd project.
In either case, licensing code under the GPL is a better approach than assigning copyright, IMHO.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
yeah, i often think, if they ever changed the licence of apache, i'll just fork it, and devote every minute of my spare time learning how to maintain the codebase of a fully featured webserver. That should be really practical.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
LedgerSMB does not require copyright assignment precisely because we don't want to send the message that we will change the license unilaterally. Copyright ownership is power, and decentralizing power means stability.
Of course in this case stability means that it would be hard to change the license, which is partially the whole point.
As a project, though, we are apolitical, and committing to a single license can be a political thing. It is possible down the road that parts of the project could be under LGPL or similar licenses, but we do promise that we will only use OSI-approved licenses.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP