SQL-Ledger Relicensed, Community Gagged 194
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?"
He did notify of the license change (Score:1, Insightful)
Relicensing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Legal: No, Ethical: Maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)
Definitely unethical (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legal obligation? Probably not... Ethical? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Legal obligation? Probably not... Ethical? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Community Gagged? (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes the community is Sooooooooo gagged that they get to complain about it on Slashdot.
Really you are not being silenced if you get to shout your complaints from the rooftop.
Just because the author of SQL-Ledger essentially told you to "talk to the hand, because I am not listening" doesn't mean you are being censored. It just means you are being ignored. Freedom of speech never meant to the person you are talking to/about had to care.
Ah, yes we live in the Baby Boomer's Narcissistic Me Generation world where if your infantile desires aren't ment it means Big Brother is oppressing you. You want censorship ask someone who lived in 60s Eastern Euriope or has been dragged in front of a no-attorney/no-recording inquiry panel for a violation fo the University's Speech Codes. There is censorship and the is being ignored.
The users aren't being gagged, they are screaming like a 2 year old havering a tantrum and they are being ignored.
Reading comprehension (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Legal: No, Ethical: Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't always work either. Just read the EULA for, well, pretty much any piece of commercial software. If the vendor disappears, decides not to support the product, if it vaporizes your computer and most of the building its in
Re:Not a Unique Phenomenon (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Relicensing... (Score:3, Insightful)
They can do whatever they like in the future. And anyone can take the entire GPL'd code base from the day before the license change and tell the "owner" to go fork himself.
That in itself counts as one of the best reasons to use GPL'd software - Eternal compatibility, as long as someone, anyone, continues work on the older codebase (which may mean nothing more than compiling it as-it-stands once every few years for any new OSs that come to popularity).
Re:Looks like the project is officially being kill (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Legal obligation? Probably not... Ethical? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can we please lay off the emotional language (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Legal obligation? Probably not... Ethical? (Score:5, Insightful)
* 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?
Re:Legal obligation? Probably not... Ethical? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Legal obligation? Probably not... Ethical? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Update and reply (Score:1, Insightful)
Mr Simader cannot change the license on works he is not the sole copyright holder of without the consent of all other contributors. It seems he tried to do this, which is a clear case of GPL violation committed by him. Just like if someone tried to re-license the linux kernel under the BSD license because they felt contributing a bit of code means that they own the whole kernel. Why does complying with the license make Mr Simader so 'unhappy', as you put it? This leads me to suspect he is a McBride-esque fraud and someone utterly ignorant of the software license SQL-Ledger is distributed under. A section from the SQL-Ledger website "Terms and Conditions -> Software Licenses" reinforces my viewpoint of him:
Licenses are there to protect intellectual property however there will always be people who abuse a license thinking that the license gives them a license to steal. You will find people who distribute forks thinking they do anyone good. In reality they are just stealing someone elses hard work and circulating as theirs. Most of the time you will hear that their's is an improved version of SQL-Ledger and the original is a piece of shit.
A 'license to steal'? 'stealing someone elses hard work'? The GPL mandates that the source code must be freely available for anyone to distribute and modify provided that derivative works are also licensed under the GPL. How can anyone steal what is freely given? The term 'steal' is utterly meaningless and paradoxical in such a context.
Re:He did notify of the license change (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Legal obligation? Probably not... Ethical? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.