FarCry License Changes

[modius]

Folks,

There has been much debate here at Daemon regarding a change in
licensing for FarCry.  As a consequence I've put together a discussion
document in an effort to explain what we are thinking and get some
feedback from the community before we do anything.

"The FarCry 5.0 release has been delayed. We're contemplating a
significant licensing change and as a consequence we want to make the
decision prior to making the release. Once we have resolved whether or
not the license change is right for our community, we'll either
release 5.0 under the current license, Common Public License 1.0
(CPL), or under the newly proposed dual-licensing scheme."

http://blog.daemon.com.au/go/blog-post/farcry-license-changes

Please feel free to post here, comment on the blog or contact me
directly with any words of support, condemnation or enquiry!

Best regards,

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[modius]

On May 7, 7:52 pm, modius <mod...@...> wrote:
> Please feel free to post here, comment on the blog or contact me
> directly with any words of support, condemnation or enquiry!

FAQ's of interest:

Joomla License FAQ (GPL)
http://dev.joomla.org/content/view/2336/102/

Mambo License Guidelines (GPL)
http://templates.mamboserver.com/demo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=26

Debate about templates in Drupal (GPL)
http://drupal.org/node/37504

GNU Licenses
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Matthew Williams-4]

My post to the blog seems to have been lost in the ether (though I
suspect it was an invalid captcha);

So, when you say modify the source, I take it that extensions, plugins,
and projects count in this instance?  Also, where would the source need
to be published?  I've only got one customer on FarCry Fortress and
they're a health care orgination.  It's not yet in production, but  it
was never discussed that there would be a licensing fee to use the product.

Now, don't get me wrong.  I don't think there's anything in there that's
going to cause any issues should I release the source, but the person
that contracted me to do the work wasn't even fond of the idea of
putting the code out on cvsdude so that multiple users could work on
it.  Me, I don't mind sharing code snippets as I have done so in the
past here and in my blog.



Matthew Williams
Geodesic GraFX
www.geodesicgrafx.com/blog

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[AJ Mercer]

How much would a commercial license cost - ballpark?

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:52 PM, modius <modius@...> wrote:

Folks,

There has been much debate here at Daemon regarding a change in
licensing for FarCry.  As a consequence I've put together a discussion
document in an effort to explain what we are thinking and get some
feedback from the community before we do anything.

"The FarCry 5.0 release has been delayed. We're contemplating a
significant licensing change and as a consequence we want to make the
decision prior to making the release. Once we have resolved whether or
not the license change is right for our community, we'll either
release 5.0 under the current license, Common Public License 1.0
(CPL), or under the newly proposed dual-licensing scheme."

http://blog.daemon.com.au/go/blog-post/farcry-license-changes

Please feel free to post here, comment on the blog or contact me
directly with any words of support, condemnation or enquiry!

Best regards,

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/

--

AJ Mercer
Web Log: http://webonix.net
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Matthew Williams-4]

Hmm..

Quick scenario.  Most of the FarCry installs that I'll do will likely be
to a shared server that is owned by the person that contracted me out as
a developer.  The owner hosts the sites to the customers that he
contracts to.  I have created my FarCry site on this server with the
presumption being we'll be adding more clients as time goes on.  If we
provide the source code to the end customer, would this satisfy the
wording of the GPL?  That would seem satisfy making the programs changes
available to the end users.  If that's what it would take to comply with
the license, that doesn't seem to be as big a deal as releasing the
source into the entirety of the public domain.


Matthew Williams
Geodesic GraFX
www.geodesicgrafx.com/blog

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[AJ Mercer]

So it is the Farcry Framework that may need to be licensed?
Does the fee include the CMS (and other) Plugins?

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:52 PM, modius <modius@...> wrote:

Folks,

There has been much debate here at Daemon regarding a change in
licensing for FarCry.  As a consequence I've put together a discussion
document in an effort to explain what we are thinking and get some
feedback from the community before we do anything.

"The FarCry 5.0 release has been delayed. We're contemplating a
significant licensing change and as a consequence we want to make the
decision prior to making the release. Once we have resolved whether or
not the license change is right for our community, we'll either
release 5.0 under the current license, Common Public License 1.0
(CPL), or under the newly proposed dual-licensing scheme."

http://blog.daemon.com.au/go/blog-post/farcry-license-changes

Please feel free to post here, comment on the blog or contact me
directly with any words of support, condemnation or enquiry!

Best regards,

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/

--

AJ Mercer
Web Log: http://webonix.net
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Rusty-22]

Hi Geoff,

I am a relatively new Far-Cry user and like many was very excited
about the upcoming release of Fortress, this was going to be the first
version of FarCry that I really wanted to sink my teeth into. This
announcement is a shock to the system to say the least as I can't
remember seeing any hint of this on any FC mailing list or preso
recently.

Anyway before I can chime in with some valuable feedback I have a few
questions:

1. Has the new Version 5 been developed entirely by Daemon staff or
does it include code and submissions from other contributors?
2. When D-day for this licencing change/ decision?
3. Under the new licensing what would happen in this situation?
A sole developer uses FarCry to create websites for his clients, he
reports bugs, submits fixes and enhancements to the FarCry team(i.e.
he contributes to the ongoing health of the FarCry project) but his
client websites usually need some degree of customisations.

Thanks, Steve Harris.

On May 7, 9:54 pm, Matthew Williams <webmas...@...>
wrote:

> My post to the blog seems to have been lost in the ether (though I
> suspect it was an invalid captcha);
>
> So, when you say modify the source, I take it that extensions, plugins,
> and projects count in this instance?  Also, where would the source need
> to be published?  I've only got one customer on FarCry Fortress and
> they're a health care orgination.  It's not yet in production, but  it
> was never discussed that there would be a licensing fee to use the product.
>
> Now, don't get me wrong.  I don't think there's anything in there that's
> going to cause any issues should I release the source, but the person
> that contracted me to do the work wasn't even fond of the idea of
> putting the code out on cvsdude so that multiple users could work on
> it.  Me, I don't mind sharing code snippets as I have done so in the
> past here and in my blog.
>
> Matthew Williams
> Geodesic GraFXwww.geodesicgrafx.com/blog

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[modius]

On May 7, 7:52 pm, modius <mod...@...> wrote:
> There has been much debate here at Daemon regarding a change in
> licensing for FarCry.  As a consequence I've put together a discussion
> document in an effort to explain what we are thinking and get some
> feedback from the community before we do anything.

First let me reiterate in the strongest terms -- this is not an
announcement of change.  This is us discussing a possible change in
advance.

I've amended the blog post to make this even clearer:
"Important: this is something that is up for consideration and does
not constitute a decision by Daemon. We are investigating the
possibility of change, and not announcing a change."

For anyone with a project demonstrably invested in FarCry 5.0
(bleeding edge) do not be alarmed -- in the event of a license change
we would do our best to shield you from any potential license costs by
donating a license or at least only passing on any specific licensing
costs we may incur from potential OEM obligations. (Assuming you
require a Commercial license at all).

Lets discuss this in the context of whether or not it is a good thing
for FarCry, without any fear that existing projects you may have might
be put in jeopardy.

Best regards,

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[modius]

I am not a lawyer this is not legal advice -- I will put this at the
top of every post :)

On May 7, 9:54 pm, Matthew Williams <webmas...@...>
wrote:
> So, when you say modify the source, I take it that extensions, plugins,
> and projects count in this instance?  Also, where would the source need
> to be published?  I've only got one customer on FarCry Fortress and
> they're a health care orgination.  It's not yet in production, but  it
> was never discussed that there would be a licensing fee to use the product.

If the client has an application confined to their own organisation,
any derivative works owned entirely by them, and they choose not to
distribute any code then those modifications are deemed to be private
and would not trigger the GPL.

If we go the GPL route, then anything that shares a memory space with
Core will potentially trigger the GPL license if you choose to
distribute the code.  However, we are investigating options for a
"license exception" to allow webskins and templates to be exempt from
the GPL.

Plugins are a little bit more tricky.  We'd be interested to hear how
people would like these to be treated.

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[modius]

I am not a lawyer this is not legal advice -- I will put this at the
top of every post :)

On May 7, 10:00 pm, Matthew Williams <webmas...@...>
wrote:

> Quick scenario.  Most of the FarCry installs that I'll do will likely be
> to a shared server that is owned by the person that contracted me out as
> a developer.  The owner hosts the sites to the customers that he
> contracts to.  I have created my FarCry site on this server with the
> presumption being we'll be adding more clients as time goes on.  If we
> provide the source code to the end customer, would this satisfy the
> wording of the GPL?  That would seem satisfy making the programs changes
> available to the end users.  If that's what it would take to comply with
> the license, that doesn't seem to be as big a deal as releasing the
> source into the entirety of the public domain.

Firstly, if the client purchased a Commercial license they'd have no
headaches, and any other options attached to the license such as
support and prioritised bug fixing etc.

But if they want to go GPL all the way then my understanding is that
as long as their modifications are private to the one organisation,
they are not obliged to do anything. Even if their application is
hosted.  Its worth noting that GPL FAQ has an odd clause about not
being able to rent a GPL application as it imposes an additional
restriction -- however, your client might simply be offering paid
hosting and a free application ;)

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[modius]

On May 7, 10:16 pm, "AJ Mercer" <ajmer...@...> wrote:
> So it is the Farcry Framework that may need to be licensed?
> Does the fee include the CMS (and other) Plugins?

If the Core is GPL then it follows that without a special license
exception, all plugins would be derivative works and so GPL. Or rather
dual licensed to retain the option of running under the Commercial
license.

The treatment of plugins is definitely something we'd like to get
feedback on. Given the power of the plugin design, its important we
don't dampen enthusiasm for the creation of plugins by imposing
license restrictions no one is happy with.

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

I think that "dampen enthusiasm" ship is sailing fast here Geoff....


Mark A. Kruger, CFG, MCSE
[phone] ext 105
www.cfwebtools.com
www.coldfusionmuse.com
www.necfug.com

-----Original Message-----
From: farcry-dev@... [mailto:farcry-dev@...] On
Behalf Of modius
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 8:14 AM
To: farcry-dev
Subject: [farcry-dev] Re: FarCry License Changes


On May 7, 10:16 pm, "AJ Mercer" <ajmer...@...> wrote:
> So it is the Farcry Framework that may need to be licensed?
> Does the fee include the CMS (and other) Plugins?

If the Core is GPL then it follows that without a special license exception,
all plugins would be derivative works and so GPL. Or rather dual licensed to
retain the option of running under the Commercial license.

The treatment of plugins is definitely something we'd like to get feedback
on. Given the power of the plugin design, its important we don't dampen
enthusiasm for the creation of plugins by imposing license restrictions no
one is happy with.

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Geoff,

Having read your post I note this at the bottom:

Like many things in life, this is not a democracy. Daemon, as the sole copyright holder of the code base for FarCry Core and FarCry CMS, is entitled to make this change at any time. We are looking to our community for feedback in order to help us in making the right decision.

Technically I'm sure this is true. However, over the years community members have donated time and effort into the cause including module development, documentation, bug hunting, expert advise. We have all "invested" in Farcry and we all have a stake in the code - that's what open source really means to us and why it works. So while you probably have a right to do this it seems a little underhanded.  I'm not saying you intend it that way - but consider the scenario the way it will play out:

• 2003 daemon releases FC to open source GPL
• Over the next few versions and 5 years various folks get on the band wagon, a large pool of fancy-pants sites are launched in FC including universities, hospitals, corporations etc.
• A strong community of developers builds around the project and adds effort to it serving as QA, fixers, feature analysts, and feature developers.
• Now, having a full featured and enterprise class product with an established base of developers and sites, Daemon bundles it up and begins to sell commercial licenses.

Technically that is just savvy business planning and I applaud you (sort of). But practically it just feels wrong.

 

CF Webtools has a lot invested in FC. We have nearly 35 sites. We recommend it for projects on a monthly basis. We have 5 sites on tap for next month. We can probably purchase commercial licenses (assuming they are reasonable) because we can bundle it into our estimate and cost. In some cases we will be able to contribute back to the project under the dual license model - so this may not affect us too much. But we use FC because we are invested in it as a product... we have a stake in it.  Although we acknowledge is is a daemon project - we feel like it belongs to us as well... like we have had a part in it's success. That warm feeling will probably go away if we head down this route :)

 

That's my 2 cents.

Mark A. Kruger, CFG, MCSE
[phone] ext 105
www.cfwebtools.com
www.coldfusionmuse.com
www.necfug.com

-----Original Message-----
From: farcry-dev@... [farcry-dev@...] On Behalf Of modius
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 4:53 AM
To: farcry-dev
Subject: [farcry-dev] FarCry License Changes


Folks,

There has been much debate here at Daemon regarding a change in licensing for FarCry.  As a consequence I've put together a discussion document in an effort to explain what we are thinking and get some feedback from the community before we do anything.

"The FarCry 5.0 release has been delayed. We're contemplating a significant licensing change and as a consequence we want to make the decision prior to making the release. Once we have resolved whether or not the license change is right for our community, we'll either release 5.0 under the current license, Common Public License 1.0 (CPL), or under the newly proposed dual-licensing scheme."

http://blog.daemon.com.au/go/blog-post/farcry-license-changes

Please feel free to post here, comment on the blog or contact me directly with any words of support, condemnation or enquiry!

Best regards,

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[modius]

On May 7, 10:18 pm, Rusty <attackpoo...@...> wrote:
> Anyway before I can chime in with some valuable feedback I have a few
> questions:
>
> 1. Has the new Version 5 been developed entirely by Daemon staff or
> does it include code and submissions from other contributors?

With the exception of minor bug fixes the works are wholly developed
by team Daemon.

> 2. When D-day for this licencing change/ decision?

Our internal deliberations have reached an impasse and we need
feedback from the community to help us move forward. In principle we
like the change but its too controversial to not seek wider opinion.
In addition its complex and disruptive, and we'd be foolish to just
rush into a change without community consultation.

There is no d-day.  We want to make sure that the change is the right
change.  There may be no change.

> 3. Under the new licensing what would happen in this situation?
> A sole developer uses FarCry to create websites for his clients, he
> reports bugs, submits fixes and enhancements to the FarCry team(i.e.
> he contributes to the ongoing health of the FarCry project) but his
> client websites usually need some degree of customisations.

Provided your customisations are the property of your client, and they
remain within that client organisation they would be deemed as private
(ie. not distributed) and would not be subject to any obligations
under the GPL.

Any contributions you make to the FarCry project would fall under the
GPL, and the copyright would be ceded to Daemon (this is a requirement
for all core contributions).

Regards,

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/

PS. did i mention i am not a lawyer -- this is not legal advice ;)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[modius]

On May 7, 11:21 pm, "Mark Kruger" <mkru...@...> wrote:

> Having read your post I note this at the bottom:
> Like many things in life, this is not a democracy. Daemon, as the sole
> copyright holder of the code base for FarCry Core and FarCry CMS, is
> entitled to make this change at any time. We are looking to our community
> for feedback in order to help us in making the right decision.
>
> Technically I'm sure this is true. However, over the years community members
> have donated time and effort into the cause including module development,
> documentation, bug hunting, expert advise. We have all "invested" in Farcry
> and we all have a stake in the code - that's what open source really means
> to us and why it works. So while you probably have a right to do this it
> seems a little underhanded.

Although we are most assuredly within our rights to make a change to
the underlying license, we could never deprive the community of its
investment.  If the community felt very strongly about the change it
would be within its rights to fork the code base -- it is open source
after all.  Obviously we want to avoid a fork at all costs and
consequently we're looking for feedback before making any changes.
We're really trying to be as open as possible about  this proposal.

If we do make the change to GPL, we still intend to maintain the
existing FarCry 4.0 maintenance branch under CPL for the foreseeable
future.

> CF Webtools has a lot invested in FC. We have nearly 35 sites. We recommend
> it for projects on a monthly basis. We have 5 sites on tap for next month.
> We can probably purchase commercial licenses (assuming they are reasonable)
> because we can bundle it into our estimate and cost. In some cases we will
> be able to contribute back to the project under the dual license model - so
> this may not affect us too much. But we use FC because we are invested in it
> as a product... we have a stake in it.  Although we acknowledge is is a
> daemon project - we feel like it belongs to us as well... like we have had a
> part in it's success. That warm feeling will probably go away if we head
> down this route :)

Under GPL it's still very much open source -- the only difference
being that without a commercial license, your own or your clients
closed-source modifications may need to be published.

Is your stake really made the lesser by the use of GPL? How does the
move to GPL impact your existing business model?  Is there anything
specifically you can no longer accomplish under GPL? Perhaps an
appropriate license exception can be made?

Despite its shortcomings GPL could potentially be used to enforce a
"quid pro quo" policy within the community.  Most users are unlikely
to be affected -- certainly Joomla, Mambo, Drupal and many other
solutions are quite happy on GPL.  Those with the potential to be most
affected are developers and organisations deriving a commercial
advantage from the use of closed source code in conjunction with open
source FarCry.  And heh, that's great.  However, its difficult to
justify our enormous investment in this superb product while less
enthusiastic teams benefit from those labours with little or no
contribution to the community. This would give us a chance to recoup
some of that investment, either in code or in license revenue to help
fund future development.

Thanks for your candid feedback -- its appreciated,

-- geoff
http://www.daemon.com.au/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "farcry-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to farcry-dev@...
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to farcry-dev-unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/farcry-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Phil Duba]

Geoff,

Being relatively new to the whole open source licensing models, I want to give a scenario which may not be far off for me as my current work, a hospital, is going through CMS evaluations to replace its existing one. Seeing how other CMS vendors cater to the medical world has me thinking about this scenario:

1. Company A decides to use the FarCry CMS and core framework as the basis of its work in the medical/hospital market
2. Company A builds a number of custom objects that meet the needs, in general terms, of medical providers. These objects utilize the core framework through the APIs documented to be loaded and utilized within the CMS plug-in.
3. Company A sells its services for installing and setting up the needed FarCry components as well as the package of custom objects to various clients.

Now, I'm sure any company out there utilziing FarCry probably does something similar to this scenario, just substitute medical for whatever. Is the essence in licensing change mean that even though Company A utilized a public API for a framework, as that's what the FarCry core has been termed as, these objects would have to be released under (L)GPL if Company A does not purchase a commercial license? Is that the essence of what this change would mean to developers using FarCry to provide solutions to customers using the same "solutions"? Thanks,

Phil

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:27 AM, modius <modius@...> wrote:

On May 7, 11:21 pm, "Mark Kruger" <mkru...@...> wrote:
> Having read your post I note this at the bottom:
> Like many things in life, this is not a democracy. Daemon, as the sole
> copyright holder of the code base for FarCry Core and FarCry CMS, is
> entitled to make this change at any time. We are looking to our community
> for feedback in order to help us in making the right decision.
>
> Technically I'm sure this is true. However, over the years community members
> have donated time and effort into the cause including module development,
> documentation, bug hunting, expert advise. We have all "invested" in Farcry
> and we all have a stake in the code - that's what open source really means
> to us and why it works. So while you probably have a right to do this it
> seems a little underhanded.

Although we are most assuredly within our rights to make a change to
the underlying license, we could never deprive the community of its
investment.  If the community felt very strongly about the change it
would be within its rights to fork the code base