back

by uneekname·1y ago·view on hn ↗
IANAL but from what I understand, folks will be able to use the current version of the software as it is currently licensed, forever. The author is making clear their intent to change the license on a certain date, at which point new versions of the software will only be available under AGPL.

I agree it's odd that folks who use this software something that isn't a "competitive offering" may have to open-source their software stack if they upgrade to a new version in 2028. But, they will always have the option to use an older version of the software that is still covered by the BSL.

1 comments
No that’s not how these license changes works. The current version is licensed under a source available license until a certain point in the future when it’s converted to an open source license, so people can use the by then possibly very outdated version freely. Or they can upgrade to the newer but still source available version if there is one. It’s meant to be an assurance that in case the business is gone by then, you the user and/or customer can still patch it yourself or rely on a community fork to keep it working.

Except here thanks to the AGPL choice, it seems to be the exact opposite of an assurance: if you use this in a proprietary setting, you’re just fucked if the business is gone and the software needs patching.

If you obtained the version you have under the current license, you can not be held by the more restrictive terms when the license changes at a later date, even if the owner changes the license on the current/older versions rather than just using the new license for new versions.

This isn't like a service where they can try force you to agree to an updated EULA with some "by continuing to use this service…" crap, or a rented device like a "smart" TV that can effectively do the same by refusing to work (though technically you've already agreed to that with a "we can fuck you over at a later date" clause in previous click-through agreements.

The license is one thing before 2028-07-01 and another thing afterwards. That’s the license you get right now, they’re not changing it after the fact. To put it more accurately, there’s no license change in the future, it’s simply one license with a set of terms before a certain date and another set of terms after it, they’re only calling it a license change because the set of terms afterwards constitute a well known license. Contracts like this are absolutely valid. If it still doesn’t make sense to you, think of a trial license.
Ah, I'd misread the comments and assumed it was an actual license change that was planned. Having actually read the LICENSE file on GitHub I have to agree. Mixing the two into one like that basically means you agree to the worst of both options.

I have nothing against AGPL, in fact if I relase anything I'll probably use it, but if I did dislike it, which some very much do, I wouldn't tough this with a bargepole even years before the change.