| ▲ | jraph 6 days ago |
| Yeah, and even if you like the idea, this is not dependable. How do you know, as a user, that you'll not end up in the jerk list tomorrow? |
|
| ▲ | gpm 6 days ago | parent [-] |
| Presumably the license would, like practically all open source licenses, be irrevocable. You aren't guaranteed new versions will be issued under the same license (short of a contract saying otherwise, just like every other piece of open source software) but the existing license that did not list you as a jerk can't be revoked... |
| |
| ▲ | jraph 6 days ago | parent [-] | | True, but that's still a risk that adds to the risk of the authors switching the license. BTW, if the jerk list is tied to the license, if the project had external contributors, they all need to agree to add or remove someone from the list, like any license change… | | |
| ▲ | gpm 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > BTW, if the jerk list is tied to the license, if the project had external contributors, they all need to agree to add [...] someone from the list, like any license change… Not if you base this off a license like MIT that allows sublicensing under more restrictive terms (not a lawyer, not legal advice) | |
| ▲ | jen20 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Untrue - all that needs to happen is that future work needs to be released with the new list attached. |
|
|
