119
Cuck License (lemmy.ml)
submitted 19 hours ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
removed 30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 19 hours ago (8 children)

How specific can licenses really get? Would it be possible to update the license on a version update of an existing library to for instance specifically forbid Fortune 1000 companies from using it, but everyone else can? It would be amazing to see these places get their tech stacks ripped out from under them, although of course many would just illegally use the code and never tell

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

    They would just fork it at that version. Licenses aren't retroactive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 18 hours ago (1 child)

    Yeah, but realistically these companies just pull new versions to overcome CVE blockers, and don't have the resources to fork and maintain

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 18 hours ago

    Thanks to the wonders of capitalism, a bunch of businesses that would have to yield to tyrannical open source devs and their goody-two-shoes mentality can pool their bargaining power and each pay a little to a benevolent clean room reimplementer of security fixes.

    Or, they can vendor the library and ask Claude to fix it in-tree 🤷

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 18 hours ago

    You can relicense code. Though that doesn't mean that you can take anything away. You just open another avenue for people to use what you wrote and developed, and any old license still exists and retains validity; the way you can curtail rights is by not granting liberal terms on newly created code.

    This is how macOS switched to zsh, and left all GNU code in it to rot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 18 hours ago

    It’s possible. “GPLv2+” code picked up the new terms when GPLv3 was released, and if GPLv4 is ever released, the v4 terms will also apply.

    This is why the Linux kernel specifies GPLv2. Not v2+, only v2.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 17 hours ago

    Would it be possible to update the license on a version update of an existing library

    Only the original author can do that, so if that library has many contributors to the code, they must ALL agree to the change. Which is why huge projects like the Linux kernel can probably never change their license.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent