• Patch@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Projects which choose BSD/Apache type licences do so fully in the knowledge that their code may be incorporated into projects with different licences. That’s literally the point: it’s considered a feature of the licence. These projects are explicitly OK with their code going proprietary, for example. If they weren’t OK with it, they’d use a GPL-type copyleft licence instead, as that’s conversely the literal point of those licences.

    Being mad about your Apache code being incorporated into a GPL project would make no sense, and certainly wouldn’t garner any sympathy from most people in the FOSS community.

    • woelkchen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yes and by not continuing that licensing but instead adopting AGPL+CLA Canonical create their usual one way street.

      • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Its not a one way street but this makes more libre thing. Canonical didnt make it proprietary to create a one way street but made it more libre by adopting AGPL license which gives users more rights to the code