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?"

Oh no!

[rolfwind]

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

The developer is in charge of /. too!

Legal obligation? Probably not... Ethical?

[erroneus]

Of course! Being open is exactly what open source is about. Well, hopefully the LedgerSMB fork will be able to get beyond the personality defects of the SQL-Ledger guy...

Here is the only license

[iminplaya]

that ever made sense to me.

"The party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part." [searchlores.org]