Timeline for Is a license bound to a commit?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 13, 2018 at 10:08 | comment | added | Michael Kay | I have absolutely no idea what the courts would decide if for example you put the raw MIT license (referring to "this software") in a subdirectory and then claimed that it only applied to the code in that subdirectory. So don't do it! | |
| Jun 13, 2018 at 9:17 | history | edited | NoDataDumpNoContribution | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Jun 13, 2018 at 9:17 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | @MichaelKay Thanks for the comment. You're right and I edited the answer. What I wanted to convey is that MIT, MPL, GPL, ... probably apply not retroactively in source code repositories unless explicitly stated by the new license or the old license allows an upgrade. That's also what the other answer by Mnementh says here. Do you think that this might be wrong for some licenses? Do you know some common licenses that would automatically extend also to former commits in a repository? | |
| Jun 13, 2018 at 9:10 | history | edited | NoDataDumpNoContribution | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 172 characters in body
|
| Jun 13, 2018 at 8:11 | comment | added | Michael Kay | That's a pretty confident assertion: "The new license applies to all the source-code that was/is present since the introduction of the new license", and I wonder what it's based on? Surely the license applies to whatever it says it applies to? And that's sometimes not at all clear, especially in the case where you clone a whole repository. The MIT license says it applies to "this software" which is pretty vague. MPL says it applies to "Source Code ... to which the initial Contributor has attached the notice in Exhibit A (&c)" which raises the question of who attached the notice. | |
| Jun 1, 2018 at 10:02 | history | answered | NoDataDumpNoContribution | CC BY-SA 4.0 |