Backport xUnit 3 support#2970
Conversation
|
What about backporting all contributions? This actually would be just fair... |
Your contributions to Fluent Assertions have and are appreciated. I invite you to reach out to the Xceed team at the following email support@xceed.com to discuss your contribution to the library. |
|
The thing is: I wouldn't have contributed (for sure), if this were a non-OSS lib from the beginning... BTW.. it's not just about me.. I think the most contributors feel the same... |
Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 12816999971Details
💛 - Coveralls |
Qodana for .NETIt seems all right 👌 No new problems were found according to the checks applied 💡 Qodana analysis was run in the pull request mode: only the changed files were checked Contact Qodana teamContact us at qodana-support@jetbrains.com
|
dennisdoomen
force-pushed
the
backport-xunit3
branch
from
c3e1c1f to
ff4fb39
Compare
A lot of your stuff is in v7, which is and will remain completely free, as well as in v8, which is completely free for open-source projects and non-profit organizations. So again, please email support@xceed.com. |
(cherry picked from commit 3e00296)
dennisdoomen
force-pushed
the
backport-xunit3
branch
from
ff4fb39 to
7b094d2
Compare
I totally agree with you, @IT-VBFK |
@vbreuss Your contributions to Fluent Assertions have and are appreciated. I invite you to reach out to the Xceed team at the following email support@xceed.com to discuss your contribution to the library. |
|
@dennisdoomen : I would rather you accept my own backports of my own contributions to v7! Please understand, that I don't blame you for the license change per se, but for the way you pulled it off. As already mentioned here, I think you should have been more open up-front with your intentions. |
|
In hindsight, we could have probably seen something coming from the strange v7 major release without any real updates, when the v8 release was on the horizon... |
The way you are handling this and responding to your own contributors makes you look like a real joke. You are actively breaking licensing (which is in fact illegal) and you are completely ignoring this. When asked by contributors to fix the mess you've created, the only thing you have to say is to write the new shitty company that now claims to own the code (which they don't). Asking ChatGPT is more interactive than interacting with you. |
I think it would be a nice idea to let contributors choose to have their PR getting merged to v7 or v8 (and for v8, giving a warning about who will own the code you wrote and who is allowed to use it). I understood the license for v7 can't just be changed (I'm no lawyer though, and I have no desire having to become one). Option to choose the v7 branch for a PR would allow contribution to code that is and remain free without needing 'permission' from Xceed (isn't it they own v8, but not <= v7 ?) or having to wait for an answer/clarity from the discussion about whether it's legal to do so for a new 'major' version of the same project. |
|
The cleanest possible way out of this mess is to backport everything from v8 to v7 (or alternatively roll back the license change), then announce the two-way licensing model which will be part of v9 (you can call it whatever you want e.g. FluentAssertionsPro). Then let your contributors decide were to pull the contributions in (the OSS or the "Pro" version). The only drawback I see (in either way) is the loss of trust.. |
They don't own v8 either. All the work created under Apache 2.0 is owned by their respective authors. The only thing they own is the work that was done under the new license which includes two commits: That's it. Version 8 consists only out of work done under Apache 2.0. This is why it's so ironic that they claim they can charge for a commercial use of it. They can't. I really don't know who (or even if someone) did the due diligence here but whoever is responsible should reconsider their actions. @dennisdoomen you can be really glad that no contributor filed a DMCA claim so far. They surely have the right to do so. |
|
To obtain ownership and make it really clear, it would need to create to a new repo (possibly in a new enterprise/company), and get a different trademark name, right? And have contributes all sign a form they agree on it. |
|
The trademark is not included in the Apache 2.0 license, therefore this can be sold legally. That's why forks like |
Trust is already lost I guess. That won't change whatever happens and needs to regrow/re-earned over time.
I guess so, but Xceed likely has plenty of $$ to pay lawyers, fees or anything else to support getting away with just changing nothing. (Isn't that with all big greedy companies?) And I think most contributors write their contributions in their spare time and don't want to bother spending time/money in order to fill a commercial companies pockets or fight a legal battle to use their own code. I guess a lot prefer moving on and contribute to alternative projects instead (or start their own). Personally, I'll give it some time to see what happens. In the meantime I'll use/write workarounds in my own projects that don't require changing the library instead where I would consider making a PR before. I don't want to bother my employer with this either. |
|
Maybe this is not the right place for this discussion. Not sure if there is already one or more running in the 'discussions' section. Enough confusion that needs clearing up, and 'questionable' matters that should be made right. That's for sure. |
8 participants
Backport #2718 based on the excellent work @0xced did.
#2935