3 ms·
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 origin
by Orygin 7mo 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 7mo agoSo, if these commits were private and squashed together before 7.0 was published there would be no violation?
- duskdozer 7mo agoThey would be concealing the violation.
- orthoxerox 7mo agoConsider 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 7mo agoThe commits being public or not does not change the fact the developement was made as a derivative work of the original version.
- tzs 7mo agoDid they eventually remove/replace all the LGPL code?
- Orygin 7mo agoNo 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.