3 ms·

Is their work present in v7?

Orygin 8mo ago
Yes. Commits clearly show in progress where both LGPL and MIT code was working together. This clearly show they are a derivative work and MUST follow the original license. Plus the argument put forth is that they can re-license the project. It's not a new one made from scratch.
- orthoxerox 8mo ago
  So, if these commits were private and squashed together before 7.0 was published there would be no violation?
  - duskdozer 8mo ago
    They would be concealing the violation.
    - orthoxerox 8mo ago
      Consider TCC relicensing. They identified the files touched by contributors that wanted to keep the GPL license and reimplemented them. No team A/team B clean room approach used. The same happened here, but at a different scale. All files now have a new author and this author is free to change the license of his work.
  - Orygin 8mo ago
    The commits being public or not does not change the fact the developement was made as a derivative work of the original version.
- tzs 8mo ago
  Did they eventually remove/replace all the LGPL code?
  - Orygin 8mo ago
    No because the "new" code is LGPL too since they developped it as a derivative work of the original. They cannot license it MIT as it is LPGL.
duskdozer 8mo ago
Yes. The AI operator posted this as the prompt: https://github.com/chardet/chardet/commit/f51f523506a73f89f0f9538fd31be458d007ab93 https://github.com/chardet/chardet/commit/f51f523506a73f89f0... which, minimally instructs it to directly examine the test suite: `4. High encoding accuracy on the chardet test suite`
- orthoxerox 8mo ago
  So what? Is reading code the same as copying code or modifying existing code?
  - Orygin 8mo ago
    If you want to prove you did not make a derivative work, yes it helps if you never read the source code. Hence so call "clean room" implementations.
    - orthoxerox 8mo ago
      Why should I prove that? Let those who claim the violation prove that.
      - Orygin 8mo ago
        There is plenty of evidence already. The claim has been substantiated. You can't just dismiss it then say the claimant has to provide proof.

Yes. Commits clearly show in progress where both LGPL and MIT code was working together. This clearly show they are a derivative work and MUST follow the original license. Plus the argument put forth is that they can re-license the project. It's not a new one made from scratch.

orthoxerox 8mo ago
So, if these commits were private and squashed together before 7.0 was published there would be no violation?
- duskdozer 8mo ago
  They would be concealing the violation.
  - orthoxerox 8mo ago
    Consider TCC relicensing. They identified the files touched by contributors that wanted to keep the GPL license and reimplemented them. No team A/team B clean room approach used. The same happened here, but at a different scale. All files now have a new author and this author is free to change the license of his work.
- Orygin 8mo ago
  The commits being public or not does not change the fact the developement was made as a derivative work of the original version.
tzs 8mo ago
Did they eventually remove/replace all the LGPL code?
- Orygin 8mo ago
  No because the "new" code is LGPL too since they developped it as a derivative work of the original. They cannot license it MIT as it is LPGL.

duskdozer 8mo ago

Yes. The AI operator posted this as the prompt: https://github.com/chardet/chardet/commit/f51f523506a73f89f0f9538fd31be458d007ab93 https://github.com/chardet/chardet/commit/f51f523506a73f89f0... which, minimally instructs it to directly examine the test suite: `4. High encoding accuracy on the chardet test suite`

orthoxerox 8mo ago
So what? Is reading code the same as copying code or modifying existing code?
- Orygin 8mo ago
  If you want to prove you did not make a derivative work, yes it helps if you never read the source code. Hence so call "clean room" implementations.
  - orthoxerox 8mo ago
    Why should I prove that? Let those who claim the violation prove that.
    - Orygin 8mo ago
      There is plenty of evidence already. The claim has been substantiated. You can't just dismiss it then say the claimant has to provide proof.