4 ms·
How is this not a copyright violation? If I had contributed under the old license, they cannot relicense my contribution under a substantially different license
by dmitrygr 8y ago
How is this not a copyright violation? If I had contributed under the old license, they cannot relicense my contribution under a substantially different license without my consent.
- kalenx 8y agoThat's specifically not how MIT license works. They could (even _I_ could) sell it under a commercial licensing without any legal issues...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- zaarn 8y agoOnly if you retain the MIT license file with your distribution, that is the only condition of it. You could sell it commercially sure, but you can't remove the MIT license file and replace it with your own EULA, which is what effectively happened here.
- 49531 8y agoI don't think individual contributors have copyright protection on MIT licensed projects? I could be wrong though.
- m90 8y agoThe PR states you can have your contribution removed if you disagree: https://github.com/lerna/lerna/pull/1616#issuecomment-416820399 https://github.com/lerna/lerna/pull/1616#issuecomment-416820... (however that might work)
- _chris_ 8y agoI'm pretty sure adding a more restrictive license clause is a fork of the code base and any new code commits would use the newer, more restrictive license.