License Change from standard Apache 2.0 license · jgraph drawio · Discussion #4623
github.com
From today the license applied to the project will be the Apache 2.0 license with an extra line forbidding usage of the codebase as an integration or app to Atlassian's Confluence or Jira products....
  • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
    5·
    16 days ago

    TL;DR: Competitors in integrating with Atlassian are not allowed to incorporate code after the change because they used it in free add-ons, which caused the official integration (a paid add-on that is the sole source of funding) to be labeled a scam by a review in late August.

    Plus, the thing was never really open source anyway:

    draw.io is also closed to contributions, as it’s not open source. We follow a development process compliant with our SOC 2 Type II process. We do not have a mechanism where we can accept contributions from non-staff members.

    • peregus@lemmy.world
      2·
      16 days ago

      Open source means that the source code is…open, that everyone can view and use it, it doesn’t mean that everyone can contribute to it. Or am I wrong?

      • chebra@mstdn.io
        1·
        16 days ago

        @peregus yes, wrong. Being “open” doesn’t mean just “readable”. Imagine an open bird cage, not just an open book. It needs to be open to fly free.

          • chebra@mstdn.io
            2·
            16 days ago

            @peregus why do you think so? My view is backed by the two official definitions from OSI and FSF, plus the wording of specific licenses. Your definition is backed by… linguistics? While ignoring the second (open cage) meaning of “open”? Quite strange narrow definition, don’t you think? And at odds with everyone who has been doing open-source for decades.

          • Lemongrab@lemmy.one
            1·
            16 days ago

            That is usually referred to as “source available” and doesnt fall into the category of open source.

      • ReakDuck@lemmy.ml
        0·
        16 days ago

        Then nvidia produced Open Source code then I guess?

        (There were Repos, but everything was Copyrighted. Noone was technically allowed to use it afaik, but it was still there about some AI stuff back then)

        • chebra@mstdn.io
          1·
          16 days ago

          @ReakDuck I’m sure nvidia would like that, this “open source” label is good for marketing. They just want to avoid being actually open. Have the cake and eat it, like many businesses do.

  • Henry@lemmy.ca
    2·
    16 days ago

    Just wondering, if a project switch to close source from open source, all the donation to the stage when it’s open source will be sent back to the donor or counted as shares?

    • peregus@lemmy.world
      1·
      16 days ago

      They count as…gone! Gone to develop what’s been open source until it becomes closed source. As I think it should be, because what you helped to develop with your donation is still there.

  • Lysergid@lemmy.ml
    1·
    16 days ago

    Whatever, I’m using it regardless of what shitty commercial alternatives tried to be shoved down my throat. If Draw.io goes shit I’ll just switch to ditaa

  • starshipwinepineapple@programming.dev
    1·
    16 days ago

    I don’t see a CLA so this is somewhat surprising that all ~30 contributors would be okay moving away from open source.

    Unless this was a unilateral decision

    • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
      2·
      16 days ago

      Apache is a permissive license, plus:

      draw.io is also closed to contributions, as it’s not open source. We follow a development process compliant with our SOC 2 Type II process. We do not have a mechanism where we can accept contributions from non-staff members.

      This was added wayyyy before. OP is making this much more of a deal than it actually is.

      • Fabian N. T.@floss.social
        1·
        16 days ago

        @Aatube I don’t see how OP is making it a big deal. That post is merely stating facts, as confirmed by the company representative in the GitHub discussion. Yes, the project was never “open-source-like governed”, but it was technically open-source software. With the additional restriction in the license it’s not anymore. All pretty theorical, but nevertheless true.

        • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
          1·
          16 days ago

          “No longer open source” is factually true. However, it gives the impression that they did something much more drastic. It would be much better to just get to the point with something like “draw.io forbids competitors for Atlassian integration from using their code”.