No right to relicense this project · Issue #327 · chardet/chardet
github.com
Hi, I'm Mark Pilgrim. You may remember me from such classics as "Dive Into Python" and "Universal Character Encoding Detector." I am the original author of chardet. First off, I would like to thank...
  • hobata@lemmy.ml
    1·
    2 days ago

    Now they have taken the work of thousands of contributors and take all the money.

    I have no problem with it.

    • vapeloki@lemmy.world
      2·
      2 days ago

      Did you contribute to the kernel? Because, I for sure have a problem with it. And I did contribute.

      • hobata@lemmy.ml
        1·
        2 days ago

        Well at first, nice that we have a kernel developer here, it’s not so easy to get your code into. And second, nope, I do not contributed to the kernel. I once wrote a module for educational purposes a long long time ago. Then FUSE came along and it helped me to solve the task with “more comfort”.

        • vapeloki@lemmy.world
          2·
          2 days ago

          I did contribute once. And it was a pain. 20 lines of code but hours of work, Mailinglists, feedback, …

          Don’t het me wrong , it was fun. But would I have done the same for BSD, so that apple could use this? Hell no

          • hobata@lemmy.ml
            1·
            2 days ago

            Perhaps this is our fundamental difference. I write code, solve my small task and have fun by doing it. If someone can get something of it, it’s twice as nice.

            • vapeloki@lemmy.world
              2·
              2 days ago

              And that’s fine. And everybody should license his code as he likes.

              But my point stands. String copyleft is important.

              That does not mean that LGPL is always a good idea, and charted is a good example, as the python stdlib is MIT licensed, and therefore an LGPL charted has no chance of getting accepted.

              Btw, the easiest first step would have been: mail every contributor (there are not that many in that case) that provided more then hast some minor fixes and ask for permission. That is a valid way to change the license.

              • hobata@lemmy.ml
                2·
                2 days ago

                I agree at the point, that everyone should use that license he like.

                Btw, the easiest first step would have been: mail every contributor (there are not that many in that case) that provided more then hast some minor fixes and ask for permission. That is a valid way to change the license.

                No, I think, that would not work this way, you have to ask every contributor, no matter how big the influence was. And everyone must agree unanimously. It’s almost an impossible task.

                • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
                  1·
                  6 hours ago

                  You don’t need it to be unanimous, but if it’s not unanimous, you have to rewrite the parts from people who refused or can’t be contacted. If their sum contributions aren’t too big, it can be feasible but a lot of work. If too many or if key contributors refuse, the work can scale exponentially.

                • vapeloki@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  2 days ago

                  I agree regarding consesus. Unlikely, but: heaving major contributions greenlighted and only replace parts of the code are fat note feasible.

                  No communication happened to my understanding at any point with any contributor.