> It seems like the problem here stems from the project owner taking the source code as-is and essentially re-licensing it as proprietary, which is a big no-no.

> It seems like the problem here stems from the project owner taking the source code as-is and essentially re-licensing it as proprietary, which is a big no-no. > For context, when NodeBB faced this possibility, we simply contacted every single contributor and asked nicely if they'd assign over their ownership of their contribution to us (note the use of the word "assign", not "license", a license is revocable, an assignment is not). This is certainly the correct way to do hit. However, in this specific case, it appears that as of the current code, not many external contributions remain. The author of the original issue in the meantime forked the repo and continued to document the issue there [1] as it was being constantly closed, but as is evident from his own `git blame` analysis, most of the contributions are from staff, and the external contributions are basically negligible. There's one author with 30 LOC, one with 10 LOC, and the remaining 12 contributors average less then 4 LOC each. [1] https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1#issuecomment-719981875 https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1#issuecom...