undefined | Better HN

0 pointszepolen2y ago0 comments

That's not how that works:

> Derivatives works (including modifications or anything statically linked to the library) can only be redistributed under LGPL

0 comments

jowea2y 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.

josebama2y 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

throwaway114602y 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).

jacooper2y ago

Did you read the article? He forced a CLA on every commit

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse