What about backporting all contributions? This actually would be just fair...

What about backporting all contributions? This actually would be just fair...

Your contributions to Fluent Assertions have and are appreciated. I invite you to reach out to the Xceed team at the following email support@xceed.com to discuss your contribution to the library.

The thing is: I wouldn't have contributed (for sure), if this were a non-OSS lib from the beginning...

BTW.. it's not just about me.. I think the most contributors feel the same...

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 12816999971

Details

• 25 of 25 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 4 files are covered.
• 20 unchanged lines in 4 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.3%) to 97.067%

Totals
Change from base Build 12809869631:	-0.3%
Covered Lines:	12945
Relevant Lines:	13201

💛 - Coveralls

Qodana for .NET

It seems all right 👌

No new problems were found according to the checks applied

💡 Qodana analysis was run in the pull request mode: only the changed files were checked
☁️ View the detailed Qodana report

The thing is: I wouldn't have contributed (for sure), if this were a non-OSS lib from the beginning...

A lot of your stuff is in v7, which is and will remain completely free, as well as in v8, which is completely free for open-source projects and non-profit organizations. So again, please email support@xceed.com.

The thing is: I wouldn't have contributed (for sure), if this were a non-OSS lib from the beginning...

BTW.. it's not just about me.. I think the most contributors feel the same...

I totally agree with you, @IT-VBFK
I created one backport-PR (#2972) for a change I made in good faith, that is not included in v7, that I would really have loved to use. Maybe I can at least use it for a limited time while staying on v7...

I totally agree with you, @IT-VBFK I created one backport-PR (#2972) for a change I made in good faith, that is not included in v7, that I would really have loved to use. Maybe I can at least use it for a limited time while staying on v7...

@vbreuss Your contributions to Fluent Assertions have and are appreciated. I invite you to reach out to the Xceed team at the following email support@xceed.com to discuss your contribution to the library.

@dennisdoomen : I would rather you accept my own backports of my own contributions to v7!

Please understand, that I don't blame you for the license change per se, but for the way you pulled it off. As already mentioned here, I think you should have been more open up-front with your intentions.
That's why I won't "reach out to the Xceed team"; I see nothing I could gain apart from more hours of frustration...

In hindsight, we could have probably seen something coming from the strange v7 major release without any real updates, when the v8 release was on the horizon...

I totally agree with you, @IT-VBFK I created one backport-PR (#2972) for a change I made in good faith, that is not included in v7, that I would really have loved to use. Maybe I can at least use it for a limited time while staying on v7...

@vbreuss Your contributions to Fluent Assertions have and are appreciated. I invite you to reach out to the Xceed team at the following email support@xceed.com to discuss your contribution to the library.

The way you are handling this and responding to your own contributors makes you look like a real joke. You are actively breaking licensing (which is in fact illegal) and you are completely ignoring this. When asked by contributors to fix the mess you've created, the only thing you have to say is to write the new shitty company that now claims to own the code (which they don't). Asking ChatGPT is more interactive than interacting with you.

I totally agree with you, @IT-VBFK I created one backport-PR (#2972) for a change I made in good faith, that is not included in v7, that I would really have loved to use. Maybe I can at least use it for a limited time while staying on v7...

@vbreuss Your contributions to Fluent Assertions have and are appreciated. I invite you to reach out to the Xceed team at the following email support@xceed.com to discuss your contribution to the library.

The way you are handling this and responding to your own contributors makes you look like a real joke. You are actively breaking licensing (which is in fact illegal) and you are completely ignoring this. When asked by contributors to fix the mess you've created, the only thing you have to say is to write the new shitty company that now claims to own the code (which they don't). Asking ChatGPT is more interactive than interacting with you.

I think it would be a nice idea to let contributors choose to have their PR getting merged to v7 or v8 (and for v8, giving a warning about who will own the code you wrote and who is allowed to use it). I understood the license for v7 can't just be changed (I'm no lawyer though, and I have no desire having to become one). Option to choose the v7 branch for a PR would allow contribution to code that is and remain free without needing 'permission' from Xceed (isn't it they own v8, but not <= v7 ?) or having to wait for an answer/clarity from the discussion about whether it's legal to do so for a new 'major' version of the same project.

The cleanest possible way out of this mess is to backport everything from v8 to v7 (or alternatively roll back the license change), then announce the two-way licensing model which will be part of v9 (you can call it whatever you want e.g. FluentAssertionsPro).

Then let your contributors decide were to pull the contributions in (the OSS or the "Pro" version).

The only drawback I see (in either way) is the loss of trust..

isn't it they own v8, but not <= v7 ?

They don't own v8 either. All the work created under Apache 2.0 is owned by their respective authors. The only thing they own is the work that was done under the new license which includes two commits:

df7e9bf
dea9d68

That's it. Version 8 consists only out of work done under Apache 2.0. This is why it's so ironic that they claim they can charge for a commercial use of it. They can't.

I really don't know who (or even if someone) did the due diligence here but whoever is responsible should reconsider their actions.

@dennisdoomen you can be really glad that no contributor filed a DMCA claim so far. They surely have the right to do so.

To obtain ownership and make it really clear, it would need to create to a new repo (possibly in a new enterprise/company), and get a different trademark name, right? And have contributes all sign a form they agree on it.

The trademark is not included in the Apache 2.0 license, therefore this can be sold legally. That's why forks like
AwesomeAssertions are getting rid of every trademark left in the repository.