[abhorrence]

> So no matter what you think of their current AUP they reserve the right to update it to anything they like in the future, and you'll have to abide by the new one!

I'm so curious if this would actually hold up in court. Does anyone know if there's any case law / precedence around this?

[davedx]

Of course, projects change their licences all the time, why wouldn't it be legal? There's a long history of startups who started with open source/open core gradually closing off or commercialising the licence. This isn't anything new at all.

This is why it's good to read licenses before adopting the tech, especially if it's at all core to your business/project.

[tux3]

No. Projects sometimes stop offering the previous license and start using a different one for new work.

But if your project is Apache-2, you cannot take away someone's license after the fact. You can only stop giving away new Apache-2 licenses from that point on.

The difference here is the license itself has mystery terms that can change at any time. That, is very much not done all the time.

[wtallis]

Releasing a new version with a new license is not the same as retroactively changing the license terms for copies already distributed of existing versions.

[mmoskal]

Projects change license for new code going forward. The old code remains available under the previous license (and sometimes new). Here, they are able to change the conditions for existing weights.