You're viewing a single thread.
Dummy question: does the new license apply retroactively? My limited understanding of licensing is that a new license can affect only those who choose to use the version that includes the new license. Those who don't upgrade are still operating under the old license, aren't they?
I thought that non-retroactive licensing was key to keeping source open, because the user just doesn't upgrade or someone forks and moves on.
It's not retroactive. Terraform 1.5.5 version and all below versions will forever remain with their original license. Forks can also be based on that version.
Yep, and if open source licensing could be revoked on a whim, you can imagine the chaos that ensued. That would be my understanding as well, old version that have MPL license is perfectly fine to fork off, newer version might not be as it is under a different license. One of the reason why I liked Apache License is that it have make it explicitly clear that it's irrevocable whereas MPL it is operating on an assumption that it's not revocable. The most fundamental problem with the legal system in USA is that no law is "set in stone" and leaving things to assumption is open to reinterpretation by the judge who may have sided against you. (Hell, Google vs Oracle on Copyrighted API is still on case-to-case basis, so take it as you will.)
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I just share what I learned from Legal Eagle youtube and few other sources.
Haha I am not a lawyer either and I don't even watch Legal Eagle. I still barely understand the Java lawsuit. Nevertheless I do take an active interest in open source licenses, considering I make open source code contributions myself (I even have some Terraform projects that I open-sourced).
I remember reading an article by a lawyer saying they love Apache License because it's permissive and unambiguous.
Okay, thanks.
So twisted knickers are understandable, but it might be more effective to mobilize forks instead of pitchforks. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)