License - Modified Apache 2.0 vs Apache 2.0 #35
Replies: 4 comments 6 replies
-
|
I agree with that, as I mentioned in #33 (comment), the latest 4.2.2 version is using a regular Apache-2.0 without extra clause. About a rebase, IHMO that would break all forks and locally cloned repository, will cause issue when merging the Applied commit after the license change
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Rebase may not be the best option, agreed. I didn't see that issue when I had first looked before opening the discussion, my apologies! I think reverting the commits would definitely be a great way of going about it. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I had an email exchange with @coclav on this and it really is just the name 'mxgraph' that is the problem. " so long as we change the name, then all is good and we can use this code base with a new name. Something to do with : "//SEIBERT/MEDIA GmbH, Wiesbaden, Germany is the exclusive licensee of but we have been assured that a simple name change will satisfy everyone |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I have to say that it is beyond my understanding ... but a lot of things are |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
That seems so wrong and feels so weird |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
so we can rollback to the original apache license v2? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Sorry for the late answer |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
done in #85 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I found this discussion too late and I fill like re-doing things already done ! In all cases I created an issue #89 describing a possible process for the transition to the Apache 2.0 license and made #90 and #91 in the same context. I noticed that @tbouffard stated #35 (comment) that the 4 problematic commits could be maybe re-written or re-applied
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Conversation locked, discussions continue in #89 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
It looks like section 4(e) was added to the license in October 29, 2020, which is a clause on work and derivative works being integrated or used with Atlassian products.
The commit includes:
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the 4(e) clause would prohibit anything using mxgraph from having any kind of Atlassian integration, for example a connector to create Jira tickets.
If all versions prior to that commit still fall under the Apache 2.0 proper license, would we be able to rebase this fork off of the commit prior to this? I'm sure there's been a bit of work that's gone into the source since that commit, which would require a bit of effort to get those individual changes back. I think the benefit of a less restrictive license license would be worth it in the long-term.
I can't stress enough that I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice. 😅
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions