Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

That's not how that works:

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

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.

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

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).

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com