this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
146 points (98.7% liked)

Python

6113 readers
31 users here now

Welcome to the Python community on the programming.dev Lemmy instance!

๐Ÿ“… Events

October 2023

November 2023

PastJuly 2023

August 2023

September 2023

๐Ÿ Python project:
๐Ÿ’“ Python Community:
โœจ Python Ecosystem:
๐ŸŒŒ Fediverse
Communities
Projects
Feeds

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
146
PySimpleGUI is now closed-source (github.com)
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
70 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Previously LGPL, now re-licensed as closed-source/commercial. Previous code taken down.

Commercial users pay $99/year, free for personal use but each user has to make a free account after a trial period.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 88 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

If this project has other contributors, imagine how betrayed they must be.

Opening the project as FOSS until it becomes popular and then closing it to make money is such a scummy tactic

[โ€“] [email protected] 37 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Fork the last commit with a LGPL commit?

GPL mentions explicitly that it is irrevocable, where as LGPL doesn't mention anything about it. IANAL, but it looks like there is a case for irrevocable without violation of clauses by default https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4012/are-licenses-irrevocable-by-default#4013

For people considering contributing to FOSS in the future, maybe check for irrevocable clauses? I wish licenses selectors https://choosealicense.com highlighted this part more clearly.

[โ€“] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago

Also depends on the contributions terms.

If they were a traditional FOSS, they can't change the terms without all contributors agreeing or removing/modifying the contributed code so that they no longer have ownership of their authored sections.

Either way, it's a dick move.

[โ€“] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Can't anyone just fork one of the LGPL versions and start a new project?

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

@fidodo @SkyNTP Sure, but unless that someone keeps it updated that fork will be useless soon. And that looks like a lot of (unpaid) work.

I like the project (was surprised to even see my user name in the contributor list) but stopped using it because I couldnโ€™t get accessibility working (mainly no full keyboard shortcuts).

For me, buying a yearly developer license to have a few GUI pop-ups at work is something Iโ€™ll only consider if I run out of options.

[โ€“] sugar_in_your_tea 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Never sign over copyright. If they didn't, they can sue.

[โ€“] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago

I've had to sign specific paperwork regarding copyright for just big projects, many smaller ones take contributions without paperwork, which would leave the rights with each contributor. They be better dot their i's and cross their t's, it just the legal fees could isnk them before making any money from the commercial license.

IANAL, just in case.

[โ€“] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

If any contributors haven't signed a contract letting them close the source, this opens them up to lawsuits.