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....
Uhhh… I think you misunderstood, or maybe i did (asking for confirmation) they changed the license to apache for forbidding others from selling their code and still having it open source.
It seems “open source” means different things for different people.
If you could see the code but were not allowed to redistribute it then I’d call it “source-available”… but you can redistribute the code, in this unusual case.
Forbidding reselling to any degree makes it “non-free” (as in freedom), which is the important part. The term “open source” was created to speak about “free software” without the moral or political aspects of user freedom.
German Wikipedia, summary translation as its better sorted and explained:
You may freely use, modify and distribute software under this license in any environment.
A copy of the license (or the reference to the license) must be included in the package.
Changes to the source code of the software under the Apache license do not have to be sent back to the licensor.
Your own software that uses software licensed under the Apache license does not have to be licensed under the Apache license.
Your own software may only be called Apache if you have written permission from the Apache Foundation.
The following also applies to version 1.1:
If you distribute it, it must be clearly indicated which software was used under the Apache license and that it originates from the licensor (name of copyright owner).
Own works that are based on an original work under the Apache License Version 2.0 must:
include a copy of the Apache license
in the case of modified files, indicate in a conspicuous place that they have been modified
retain all original copyright notices in the source form
if the original work contains a text file called "NOTICE", include the copyright notices of the files used in a manner specified in the license.
Draw.io says it will use Apache but “with an extra line forbidding usage (…)”. It is not the normal Apache license. The extra line is a big difference in principle.
I hate scamming people but I think that should be fixed in another way.
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
Uhhh… I think you misunderstood, or maybe i did (asking for confirmation) they changed the license to apache for forbidding others from selling their code and still having it open source.
It seems “open source” means different things for different people.
If you could see the code but were not allowed to redistribute it then I’d call it “source-available”… but you can redistribute the code, in this unusual case.
Forbidding reselling to any degree makes it “non-free” (as in freedom), which is the important part. The term “open source” was created to speak about “free software” without the moral or political aspects of user freedom.
People talking other peoples work and scaming unsuspecting people with it is not ok.
Englisch Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License
German Wikipedia, summary translation as its better sorted and explained:
The following also applies to version 1.1:
Own works that are based on an original work under the Apache License Version 2.0 must:
Draw.io says it will use Apache but “with an extra line forbidding usage (…)”. It is not the normal Apache license. The extra line is a big difference in principle.
I hate scamming people but I think that should be fixed in another way.
Seems pretty specific to me.