> because they didn’t have a CLA, the lawyers wouldn’t sign off on it — they decided that the main/current maintainer didn’t have the rights to relicense it for us.
How would the legal argument be any different for MIT/etc. licensed software in that case? Would the lawyers sign off on using MIT-licensed software without a CLA? Wouldn't they make the argument that the provenance of the software and therefore its licensing is not solid? Seems like the only thing that matters is who has the right to offer a license to the software, not what the license is.