3 ms·

They didn't make a business using an open source project; they turned their open source project into a monetized non open source project.

• zepolen 3y ago
  That's not how that works: > Derivatives works (including modifications or anything statically linked to the library) can only be redistributed under LGPL
  • jowea 3y ago
    LGPL does not bind the author(s) of the software in this way. And since there was a CLA the other authors authorized the main dev to change the license.
    • josebama 3y ago
      Thank you! This is the piece of information I was missing. I kept wondering as I read the article whether that was a LGPL license breach. Thanks for clarifying
      • throwaway11460 3y ago
        As the owner of the intellectual property you're the one licensing to others. License is a kind of contract. You're not under any license yourself, it's yours. If you accepted PRs without a contributor agreement transferring the ownership, you might be infringing on their IP (licensed to you and others).
  • jacooper 3y ago
    Did you read the article? He forced a CLA on every commit