3 ms·

So, it seems there is way more backstory to this than the issue spells out (or only starts to). Can anyone provide a bit more context? Was this done in a backha

• wnevets 9y ago
  >Can anyone provide a bit more context? Was this done in a backhanded, malicious way? according to the complaint he removed the existing licenses and replaced them with apache. That sounds kinda sneaky
  • chimeracoder 9y ago
    > according to the complaint he removed the existing licenses and replaced them with apache. That sounds kinda sneaky That can't be the whole of it, though, right? Because the MIT license allows relicensing. For example, I can redistribute an MIT-licensed project as part of a GPL-licensed one, although I do still have to include the original MIT license as part of the project, even if the whole project is redistributed under different terms. It's not really the right way to handle a relicensing, but to be quite honest, it's easy to make minor technical mistakes with free software licensing even if you're acting in good faith and trying to do something that is ultimately permitted by the license Heck, even the term "MIT license" is technically not recommended by the FSF, as it's ambiguous (they recommend the unambiguous and equivalent term "X11 license")
  • dekhn 9y ago
    That complaint does not seem to be valid at all, though. It's new code, not a copy with stripped licenses.