I've read CONTRIBUTING.md and unless I've missed a line by accident, there is no CLA for contributions, so with the first non-trivial 3rs party contribution the entire code base is AGPL with no way to relicense unless it's negotiated with said contributor.

[+] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] woelkchen 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The (A)GPL has no problems with the app store. It merely requires that users must be able to install altered versions and that's certainly possible. It's the app store policies by Apple that forbid GPL apps.

Missing a CLA seems like an oversight, releasing the public code under a license forbidden by Apple's terms is most likely a deliberate choice to block competing app store submissions. They'd just use LGPLv2.1, Apache License 2, or so.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

From the README:

Feel free to take a look around. We are not yet taking patches as we still have a little bit of tidying up to do. When we do, there will be a contributor license agreement.

So yeah, looks like there will be a CLA.

[–] woelkchen 1 points 11 months ago

So yeah, looks like there will be a CLA.

So hostile, asymmetric licensing...

[+] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] woelkchen 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don’t think Apple’s terms are problematic.

The VLC people had to contact many authors to relicense libVLC to LGPLv2.1 because it would otherwise not be compliant to Apple's terms. Surely the details are documented somewhere.