4 ms·

> The improvements one group makes in its would-be "fork" are freely available to the main community. IANAL, but there's a caveat here, which is that a lot of

> The improvements one group makes in its would-be "fork" are freely available to the main community. IANAL, but there's a caveat here, which is that a lot of these forks are due to companies relicensing to source-available licenses, which generally means they require a CLA (and full copyright license) from each of their contributors, so that they can relicense the codebase at will. The code committed to the fork can't be pulled by the relicensed project in this case, unless it's the original contributor making a contribution to both, because such code would only be covered by the fork's license, not by the new license nor CLA.

mschuster91 2y ago
My biggest gripes are u-boot and the Linux kernel. Both are clearly GPL only, you must provide sourcecode for your modifications including drivers as a vendor, and yet so many make one jump through hoops it's not even close to funny any more. Or they don't fulfill their obligations at all.
- pabs3 2y ago
  If you know of any Linux/u-boot GPL violations, reporting them to Software Freedom Conservancy might help: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/help.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/help.html