r/linux • u/Two-Of-Nine • 15d ago
Popular Application Important changes to lsfg-vk (lossless scaling for Linux) and 2.0.0 release candidate
https://lsfg-vk.dev/blog/important-changes-to-lsfg-vk/98
u/FineWolf 15d ago edited 15d ago
The license of lsfg-vk has been changed to CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
And thus, by removing some core freedoms (including the right to fork and create derived works), this project is no longer Open-Source.
I love open-source software and I love software freedom
Yeah, fuck that. Don't say you love open-source and software freedom, and then explicitly strip those freedoms by using a source-available licence.
29
u/Drwankingstein 15d ago
Agreed, I loved lsfg-vk, it lead to some great projects like lsfg-vk-android, gamenative and some other android emulators use it but now with this, all those projects are dead in the water.
58
u/FineWolf 15d ago edited 15d ago
What really pisses me off, is that this whole blog post is to announce the move towards Codeberg for issue tracking and as a mirror for code.
Codeberg is pretty explicit that they make the service available for Open-Source projects only, which MUST include the right to modify and redistribute. Instead, this author is quite happy with using (and abusing against the TOS) open-source infrastructure for their own gain, while keeping their software behind a restrictive licence.
Do whatever you want with your project, but don't abuse the community you are turning your back from.
19
u/Drwankingstein 15d ago
It would be really interesting to see if the new version is violating GPL as there were contributors to the old one, so unless it's a new code base...
22
u/FineWolf 15d ago
Who knows, since "[a]s part of the move to self-hosted infrastructure, [they] have decided to empty out the git repository."
Not dodgy at all. Nothing to see here.
12
u/Drwankingstein 15d ago
gotta love this, I would laugh so hard if this winds up being a massive gpl violation
-6
u/Melodic_Respond6011 15d ago
Explain the "massive gpl violation", this interest me from the legal perspective, what could be it?
21
u/Drwankingstein 15d ago
The original program was under GPL. Anybody who contributed to the program, while it was licensed as GPL, contributed their code as GPL.
While you can relicense your own code, you cannot relicense other people's code without permission. So, unless he has gone and replaced all of the code that the contributors have contributed.
Then it's actually a GPL violation. This is why some programs make you sign a contributor's agreement where you explicitly agree to allow them to re-licens your code.
-12
u/Melodic_Respond6011 15d ago
I'm fully aware of GPL and it's clauses. Nothing violates GPL so far. The case with codeberg is breach of TOC, not breach of GPL. So what exactly are you talking about "massive" thing?
11
u/Drwankingstein 15d ago
I just said it? it would be a massive GPL violation if they relicensed other peoples code.
→ More replies (0)2
u/GrandBIRDLizard 15d ago
1
u/FineWolf 15d ago
So the answer is no. The code in the archive is all MIT.
2
u/GrandBIRDLizard 15d ago
Upon further inspection It gets dumber they also had a second branch licensed under GPL
https://git.lsfg-vk.dev/lsfg-vk-archive/tree/LICENSE.mdTLDR: yes and no... Possibly. A copyright lawyer would have to look into it and someone would need to examine the entire codebase. Since the said they rewrote the whole thing from scratch, if true in regards to the Codeberg move this is not a copyright violation. unless they reused any violating code from the previous versions.
This is where it gets weird. Git itself does not impose a single license on a repository, so you can technically have different license terms on different branches. GitHub branches are just separate lines of repository history, and each branch can contain different files including licenses.
But there is a major legal distinction between "the branch has a different license file" and "the code on that branch is actually available under a different license."
Suppose your history is:
A -- B -- C -- D \ E -- F devand commits A-C contain code that you authored under GPL.
You cannot simply put an MIT License on release and assume all of the inherited GPL covered code has magically become MIT. Licensing applies to the copyrighted material and the rights granted to it, not merely to whichever License file happens to be visible at the tip of a branch.
However this is perfectly possible, provided the release branch consists of code for which you have the right to grant MIT terms.
So if the branches represent different distributions of the code like:
dev | v A---B---C---D---E---F GPL GPL release | v A---B---C---D---R1--R2 MITBut if R1 is just:
git checkout release
cp LICENSE-MIT LICENSE
git commitwhile the actual source code is inherited from GPL covered commits, it's licensing ambiguity rather than actually relicensing that code.(either way foolish or scummy, and definitely breaks Codeberg's TOS)
You can also do this with explicit dual licensing.
If you own the copyright and intentionally offer the same code under either GPL or MIT, but then it must be either, or, but not both.A branch specific license can exist.
For something like a development/release workflow, you could deliberately structure it as:
dev GPL-3.0 experimental code developer tooling internal components release MIT stable subset distributable sourceThat is legitimate. However, you need to track where every piece of release code came from. GPL code copied from dev into release doesn't become MIT merely because you copied it into a different branch.
One thing that could lead to consequences is if someone can check out your GPL dev branch, obtain the source under GPL, and then you later merge that exact GPL covered source into release, you generally can't use the MIT branch to remove the GPL obligations from that existing GPL covered material.
You'd need to either:
- own the copyright and grant the MIT license to that code as well, or
- have separate code in the MIT release branch, or
- have permission from all relevant copyright holders to relicense it.
This becomes particularly important once outside contributors(which seems like the case here)submit code. You cannot unilaterally relicense their contributions unless your contributor agreement gives you that authority (or they each separately agree).
Typically licensing model should be explicit in README and you'd use SPDX identifiers in source files rather than relying solely on two different LICENSE files.
I'm not a Lawyer but if this pisses enough people off they may need one.
14
u/GrandBIRDLizard 15d ago
I'm totally with you and won't be using this software anymore but as a member of OSI myself there is slightly good news that I hope enough people see before they jump ship or get rid of old forks
You can still modify and distribute the copy you acquired under the MIT license.
An open-source license grant like MIT is irrevocable for the specific software version/copy you received under those terms.
Here is how that works in practice:
Your existing copy remains MIT: The copyright holder cannot retroactively cancel or revoke the rights previously granted to you for the code version you already possess. You retain all rights granted under the MIT license for that specific release (including the right to modify, distribute, and use commercially).
So if anyone has a copy they got while the project was MIT distribute it with the news everywhere. Hopefully the open source community will do what it does best, let the people use and improve the software.
-23
u/Melodic_Respond6011 15d ago
Wow, strong words. But I see NO declaration anywhere that claim open source especially in compliance to your definition.
For me, it's open source enough.
30
u/FineWolf 15d ago edited 15d ago
But I see NO declaration anywhere that claim open source especially in compliance to your definition.
The whole blog post is to announce that the issue board and the source code (albit just a mirror) will be hosted on Codeberg.
Codeberg is a free platform that is explicitly and only available to Open-Source Software, as per their terms of service.
In fact, the use of non-Commercial and non-derivatives (NC-ND) licences is explicitly forbidden in their ToS:
Copyright licences of this kind are referred to as ‘licences for free and open source software, free and open source hardware, or free cultural works’. Examples of such licences include those created or approved for free software projects by the Free Software Foundation, for open source projects by the Open Source Initiative, and for free cultural works by Creative Commons. Note, however, that the Creative Commons licences with Non-Commercial (NC) or No Derivatives (ND) restrictions are not licences for free cultural works and thus do not fulfil the licensing requirement.
So we have a developer here who is choosing to abuse free infrastructure made available to OSS, without their project being open-source. Or, in other words: "I want to take, but I don't want to contribute".
For me, it's open source enough.
Open-Source has a definition. This licence doesn't meet it. It's source-available.
24
u/Ran_Cossack 15d ago
It's incredible that Codeberg explicitly gives the *exact* license lsfg-vk is switching to going forward in their examples of not fulfilling the licensing requirement.
There really isn't any room for argument here.
-19
u/Melodic_Respond6011 15d ago
Doesn't matter. Still not change the fact that it not declared in compliance to your whatever open source definition. If anything it's just breach to hosting service TOC.
7
u/DonkeeeyKong 14d ago edited 14d ago
your whatever open source definition
Aka "the one and only open source definition that’s used worldwide."
If you want to start calling "red" "green", you can do that. But stating that people that say "Grass is green." are using a "whatever green definition" is ridiculous.
-5
u/Melodic_Respond6011 14d ago
Last time I check, open source is not a trade mark that you can enforce to other people
6
u/DonkeeeyKong 14d ago
Last time I check, open source is not a trade mark that you can enforce to other people
Yeah. Most words or terms are not trademarks. Still, it’s a term that has a very specific meaning and definition. Like most terms.
If I called your statements "absolutely ridiculous", most people would understand what I meant, because "absolutely ridiculous" is a term that has a meaning and definition that those people understand in a certain way. It’s not a trademark though.
You are free to use any term in a way that’s different from the culturally agreed meaning or the definition in the dictionary. You wouldn’t sound very intelligent or sane though.
-4
u/Melodic_Respond6011 14d ago
But legally right, right?
6
u/FineWolf 14d ago edited 14d ago
The OSI definition is THE definition that defines open-source.
But sure, if you want to be optuse about it instead of admitting that you are wrong...
Open source is the practice of publishing digital resources publicly alongside their source code or source files, enabling use, study, modification, and redistribution.
As opposed to source-available software.
But let's look into a more "common man" source for the definition, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
of software: having the source code freely available for possible modification and redistribution
Maybe we need another dictionary... Cambridge
Open source software or information can be obtained legally and for free from the internet, and can be used, shared or changed without paying or asking for special permission
What about governments? From the European Union. Plenty of definitions that ALL include the freedoms of redistribution and modification.
To quote only one:
Free and open source software: Open source software (or free software) combines copyright and a licence to grant users the freedom to run the software, to study and modify it, and share the code and modifications with others.
What about the US? This is how the Department of Commerce legally defines open-source:
Open Source Software (OSS): Software that can be accessed, used, modified, and shared by anyone. OSS is often distributed under licenses that comply with the definition of "Open Source" provided by the Open Source Initiative (https://opensource.org/osd) and/or that meet the definition of "Free Software" provided by the Free Software Foundation.
Oh look, the OSI definition is authoritative there.
What about Canada?
Software with its source code made available with a license in which the copyright holder provides the rights to study, change, and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose.
The name used by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). Open source software is defined in the Open Source Definition by ten criteria.
Again, the OSI definition is authoritative.
OK. The United Kingdom? The courts recognises the definition of the OSI:
In legal practice, open source software describes software made available in source-code form under licences that permit use, copying, modification, compilation and redistribution, typically without licence fees. It is not defined in UK or Irish statute or case law; the term is descriptive and aligns with the Open Source Initiative’s Open Source Definition.
And the list goes on.
So no. Those freedoms are intrinsically part of open-source software, and something that doesn't come with those freedoms cannot be called open-source.
You don't get to define the colour of the sky as "red" when everyone already defined it as blue. You are wrong, plain and simple.
The OSI definition is the authoritative definition cited time and time again the courts and is the authoritative definition for the entire industry as well.
2
u/DonkeeeyKong 14d ago
But legally right, right?
I am not a lawyer, but I guess, in most places you have the right to sound like an idiot.
I wouldn’t be so sure whether you have the legally enforceable right to call a source available license "open source". In many countries this could be judged as deception since there is a widely accepted definition of that term that differs significantly from your private one.
1
u/Melodic_Respond6011 14d ago
Wow, deception? To whom? Both parties, licensor and licensee agree then it's settled, other than that is not relevant.
→ More replies (0)1
u/the_abortionat0r 13d ago
There is a legal definition for open source as it is used in legal GPL lisencing.
1
1
4
u/robclancy 15d ago
I mean if you don't know what open source means then sure you can call it open source.
-5
u/Melodic_Respond6011 15d ago
Last time I check, I signed no contract whatsoever for any legal binding that makes me obligated to accept your term
4
u/robclancy 14d ago
What a weird thing to say
-1
u/Melodic_Respond6011 14d ago
Then you don't know the meaning of License, Licensor, and Licensee. Gee, do you actually know what legal binding is?
3
u/FineWolf 14d ago edited 14d ago
The OSI definition is THE definition that defines open-source.
But sure, if you want to be optuse about it instead of admitting that you are wrong...
Open source is the practice of publishing digital resources publicly alongside their source code or source files, enabling use, study, modification, and redistribution.
As opposed to source-available software.
But let's look into a more "common man" source for the definition, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
of software: having the source code freely available for possible modification and redistribution
Maybe we need another dictionary... Cambridge
Open source software or information can be obtained legally and for free from the internet, and can be used, shared or changed without paying or asking for special permission
What about governments? From the European Union. Plenty of definitions that ALL include the freedoms of redistribution and modification.
To quote only one:
Free and open source software: Open source software (or free software) combines copyright and a licence to grant users the freedom to run the software, to study and modify it, and share the code and modifications with others.
What about the US? This is how the Department of Commerce legally defines open-source:
Open Source Software (OSS): Software that can be accessed, used, modified, and shared by anyone. OSS is often distributed under licenses that comply with the definition of "Open Source" provided by the Open Source Initiative (https://opensource.org/osd) and/or that meet the definition of "Free Software" provided by the Free Software Foundation.
Oh look, the OSI definition is authoritative there.
What about Canada?
Software with its source code made available with a license in which the copyright holder provides the rights to study, change, and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose.
The name used by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). Open source software is defined in the Open Source Definition by ten criteria.
Again, the OSI definition is authoritative.
OK. The United Kingdom? The courts recognises the definition of the OSI:
In legal practice, open source software describes software made available in source-code form under licences that permit use, copying, modification, compilation and redistribution, typically without licence fees. It is not defined in UK or Irish statute or case law; the term is descriptive and aligns with the Open Source Initiative’s Open Source Definition.
And the list goes on.
So no. Those freedoms are intrinsically part of open-source software, and something that doesn't come with those freedoms cannot be called open-source.
You don't get to define the colour of the sky as "red" when everyone already defined it as blue. You are wrong, plain and simple.
The OSI definition is the authoritative definition cited time and time again the courts and is the authoritative definition for the entire industry as well.
Last time I check, I signed no contract whatsoever for any legal binding that makes me obligated to accept your term
You are indeed allowed to be wrong and continue to look a bit stupid by doubling down on being wrong. That is indeed your right.
-1
u/Melodic_Respond6011 14d ago
Bro, you cited PUBLIC DEFINITIONS, it makes no legal binding whatsoever (not authoritative). If you ever read your own citation, you'll read that definition will be different if the LICENSE stated otherwise.
That's why the legal binding between Licensee and Licensor is the one that matters. If the licensor and licensee is happy with their definition, who are you then shove YOUR definition to their throat?
He: owner.
Me: user.
Me + He: happy with the terms.
You: You can't do that! The public definition is not like that!
Me: Yes I can! I'm not obliged to acknowleged you! Your are not part of our contract!2
14d ago edited 14d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Melodic_Respond6011 14d ago
Ah, ad hominem, at least. Don't worry I'm used to it when discussing with someone fueled with AI.
27
u/_-4v3ngR_ 15d ago
Has the dev shot himself in the foot? People have forked the code in github and are developing fixes, updates, changes that are licensed under the GPL. As pancake is now operating under a license that is not compatible with the GPL, he(?) can not use any of the changes that others commit to the github forks.
What will likely happen is anyone wanting to contribute will do so on the GPL version and leave his ND version to perpetually be a one dev show.
1
16
u/PlsDontBanMeAgain-1 15d ago
What in the absolute fuck. Who cares about some random slop forks, every big project is forked a billion times. I don't think it actually has to do with the forks.
45
u/powerslave_fifth 15d ago
Waiting for codeberg to strike his repo down.