> This is total nonsense. No it's not. > The code was licensed, publicly, under AGPL. Yeah, and unless they depend on similarly licensed code that imposed re

> This is total nonsense. No it's not. > The code was licensed, publicly, under AGPL. Yeah, and unless they depend on similarly licensed code that imposed restrictions on them (in which case someone should mention this to the maintainer in the beginning so he knows he has a legal obligation he's not fulfilling), it can be taken down and/or licensed differently moving forward however the contributors want to, without them owing you, me, or anybody else a notification or explanation. Even whom exactly that set of people is is not your business (nor mine). They may well not even want to divulge their relationships with each other to you, and they would have every right not to want to. You're neither a party to the matter, nor their lawyer, nor part of law enforcement, to try to seek justice on their behalf. If you're trying to be helpful, you can notify them privately and let them deal with it, or see if they want you to help. If they have a problem, they'll follow up. If they don't, that's the end of it. You can save your pitchfork for problems you're actually a party to. > Like the GP said, they could have easily said it's based on the AGPL code and they have consent Or they could have not, because it's quite literally their business, and not your business to intervene (or mine). > but you seem to be OK with the maintainer lying that it's a total rewrite. No, this is what's complete nonsense. There are a heck of a lot of things I'm not OK with in this world, but I hold my peace on most of them and let those who are responsible deal with it. The fact that you don't see me trying to publicly crucify everyone who's ever lied to me does not mean I'm OK with people lying. It just means I don't think that every time someone does something wrong it is or should be my business to take justice in my own hands and get the rest of the world to publicly wreck them.