regis, 4 months ago

@resmo Why should they have asked for approval?

resmo, 4 months ago

@regis IMNAL, but since AFAICS there was no CLA/CTA, each contributor still holds the copyright.

If you want to change the license of the published code, you have to ask each ("...significantly changed code") copyright holder for their permission to do so.

One can not take other ones code and change license.

regis, 4 months ago

@resmo I would say that the new license apply to the code from now on, not on the previous one?

I would mind a lot if I should ask every contributor of my repos this kind of change before making the change.

danjac, 4 months ago

@resmo wait what?

danjac, 4 months ago

@resmo I can't see any context so assuming there is a good reason, reaching out to the maintainers on Discord to check.

alexzeitler, 4 months ago

@danjac @resmo Context
https://mastodon.social/@alexzeitler/111758995392179761

danjac, 4 months ago

@alexzeitler @resmo so even if Carson took a job at MSFT, why the licence change?

alcinnz, 4 months ago

@alexzeitler @danjac @resmo So you're saying investors object to a requirement in the BSD license to attribute their sources? Sounds petty!

Concurring with others, my naive legal understanding is that this change isn't binding for existing HTMX code. I guess they're hoping that the change is minor enough that noone significant will call them out on it...

danjac, 4 months ago

@alcinnz @alexzeitler @resmo from discord etc I've not seen anything that would indicate they are serious about VCs or MSFT. The change appears quite innocuous.

That said, changing a licence without any discussion or explanation feels a bit off, as people in some work situations may have to get all licences scrutinized for legal reasons and this puts them in a spot.

alcinnz, 4 months ago

@danjac @alexzeitler @resmo This is a weird change. Fairly minor, but not executed in a way I understand to be proper & leaves me asking "why?".