elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
Friendly nxt fork
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Latest Stable Nxt Client: Nxt 1.12.2

Pages: 1 [2] 3  All

Author Topic: Friendly nxt fork  (Read 10819 times)

jl777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +718/-123
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6170
    • View Profile
Re: Friendly nxt fork
« Reply #20 on: August 25, 2015, 09:44:00 pm »

As a core developer, to state the obvious, I support jean-luc. I second that the NXT code of any of the 1.5.x branches cannot be used under the MIT license. Period.

Rest assured, that the decision to switch to GPL was not taken lightly.
As a corporate developer in my day job, I learned to treat the GPL license as a threat because of its virality aspects that pretty much prevents its usage in closed source products.
However, in the case of NXT, I truly believe that the GPL usage is justified in order to make it difficult to vandalize NXT while contributing nothing in return and still maintain NXT as an open source project.

The GPL license leaves clone developers to choose between two options:
1. Release their code under GPL as well, and thus allow the NXT devs to possibly integrate back some of the derived work into the core - I can fully understand why a startup wouldn't want to choose this option.
2. License the NXT core from the NXT foundation under a commercial license and pay license, maintenance and services fee like you pay for a database or ERP product.
I liked this plan so much, I just copied it for SuperNET

Logged
There are over 1000 people in SuperNET slack! http://slackinvite.supernet.org/ automatically sends you an invite

I am just a simple C programmer

mikecorleone

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Karma: +5/-4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Friendly nxt fork
« Reply #21 on: August 25, 2015, 11:47:11 pm »

JLP: You've published it under two licenses then. Once under the MIT, once under the GPL. See the commit I cited above. 

Our customers are financial institutions, we help them adopt cryptocurrencies. The reason they consider the MIT license more business friendly to the GPL is because if they create something proprietary and license it to a peer institution they don't want to have to track down every single contributor to a project and license their contributions to the project, any of whom could hold out. Let's face it, this isn't something nxt is doing today. If some business entity were to license the code as non GPL from a company calling itself nxt, that licensing company would be the one violating copyright, not the other way around. Until you have a signed CLA from every single contributor donating their copyright to that company, you can't run a parallel IP licensing business. Since that tends to have a chilling effect on collaboration, this is why most serious core projects are published under the { apache, mit } license - to avoid this problem.

Do you have strong cryptography skills? Interested in working on an MIT licensed fork of nxt? We'd love to hear from you. PM me and let me know a bit about your work.
Logged

jl777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +718/-123
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6170
    • View Profile
Re: Friendly nxt fork
« Reply #22 on: August 26, 2015, 12:11:35 am »

JLP: You've published it under two licenses then. Once under the MIT, once under the GPL. See the commit I cited above. 

Our customers are financial institutions, we help them adopt cryptocurrencies. The reason they consider the MIT license more business friendly to the GPL is because if they create something proprietary and license it to a peer institution they don't want to have to track down every single contributor to a project and license their contributions to the project, any of whom could hold out. Let's face it, this isn't something nxt is doing today. If some business entity were to license the code as non GPL from a company calling itself nxt, that licensing company would be the one violating copyright, not the other way around. Until you have a signed CLA from every single contributor donating their copyright to that company, you can't run a parallel IP licensing business. Since that tends to have a chilling effect on collaboration, this is why most serious core projects are published under the { apache, mit } license - to avoid this problem.

Do you have strong cryptography skills? Interested in working on an MIT licensed fork of nxt? We'd love to hear from you. PM me and let me know a bit about your work.
have you read the DEVELOPER-AGREEMENT?

****
4. Re-licensing.

Re-licensing of the Nxt software under a different license requires the
agreement of all copyright holders whose work is being re-licensed. To
ensure that an unreachable copyright holder cannot prevent the active
development team from making licensing decisions, each copyright holder
who leaves the development team shall provide an Nxt account number in
the AUTHORS.txt file, at which he can be contacted to discuss such
decisions. Lack of such contact info, or lack of any type of response to
a re-licensing permission request after more than 28 days, as recorded
in the Nxt blockchain, shall be interpreted as an irrevocable permission
to the then active development team to perform the specific re-licensing
for which such a permission has been sought.

****

GPL is open source, and a 28 day period in the real world licensing negotiations is not any obstacle. So if you need some custom NXT variant, it is a matter to pay a reasonable fee and it could even be done by the NXT devs themselves.

James
Logged
There are over 1000 people in SuperNET slack! http://slackinvite.supernet.org/ automatically sends you an invite

I am just a simple C programmer

mikecorleone

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Karma: +5/-4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Friendly nxt fork
« Reply #23 on: August 26, 2015, 12:31:56 am »

James, I'm afraid that the legal community takes a dim view of the one sided contract like the one you've cited there. I'll spare you a digression about the intracacies of licenses / contracts. To put it mildly, what you have cited there is insufficient to achieve the goal you are after, something I gently tried to point out in my last comment about nxt not being set up right now to do this. Anyhow, with any luck this should be my last comment on the matter.
Logged

dude

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: +44/-5
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 207
    • View Profile
Re: Friendly nxt fork
« Reply #24 on: August 26, 2015, 02:39:18 am »

JLP: You've published it under two licenses then. Once under the MIT, once under the GPL. See the commit I cited above. 

You seem to have trouble reading, no source code was published in the experimental branch of 1.5.

Do you have strong cryptography skills? Interested in working on an MIT licensed fork of nxt? We'd love to hear from you. PM me and let me know a bit about your work.

I don't understand this advertisement, why don't you rather cooperate directly with Nxt core devs instead of searching for random people?
Logged

Jean-Luc

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +816/-81
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1610
    • View Profile
Re: Friendly nxt fork
« Reply #25 on: August 26, 2015, 04:55:01 am »

JLP: You've published it under two licenses then. Once under the MIT, once under the GPL. See the commit I cited above.
All 1.5 branch source code is published under GPL. If you try to use it under another license without my permission you will be intentionally committing a copyright violation, and will be sued. Did I make myself clear?
Logged
GPG key fingerprint: 263A 9EB0 29CF C77A 3D06  FD13 811D 6940 E1E4 240C
NXT-X4LF-9A4G-WN9Z-2R322

mikecorleone

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Karma: +5/-4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: nxt fork
« Reply #26 on: August 26, 2015, 06:51:43 am »

We came here with the best of intentions to collaborate and maybe hire a few people to work on open source. All we've got back is nerd rage.

I don't like it. I definitely don't like being threatened, so challenge accepted on your empty threat lawsuit. Using it here: github.com/awcoding/nxt

Go ahead and sue. I'm really curious to know how long it will take you to figure out that you are wrong. If you don't get it now, maybe you won't even get it when your lawyer tells you that you are wrong. Anyhow, I expect I will be coming back in about 6 months and have a good long laugh at you. In my Google Calendar. 







Logged

jl777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +718/-123
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6170
    • View Profile
Re: nxt fork
« Reply #27 on: August 26, 2015, 06:57:45 am »

We came here with the best of intentions to collaborate and maybe hire a few people to work on open source. All we've got back is nerd rage.

I don't like it. I definitely don't like being threatened, so challenge accepted on your empty threat lawsuit. Using it here: github.com/awcoding/nxt

Go ahead and sue. I'm really curious to know how long it will take you to figure out that you are wrong. If you don't get it now, maybe you won't even get it when your lawyer tells you that you are wrong. Anyhow, I expect I will be coming back in about 6 months and have a good long laugh at you. In my Google Calendar.
Keep it GPL and honor the license, then there is no need for any legal things. Not sure what your point is, but at least you published a repo, so it is a good start.

James
Logged
There are over 1000 people in SuperNET slack! http://slackinvite.supernet.org/ automatically sends you an invite

I am just a simple C programmer

Cassius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +207/-18
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2459
  • Rather be a pirate than join the navy
    • View Profile
Re: Friendly nxt fork
« Reply #28 on: August 26, 2015, 08:21:35 am »

I'm not quite sure what happened here, but we went from zero to lawsuit in just over 24 hours.
I'm pretty sure this could have been resolved more amicably and productively for all involved. It probably still could be.
I could include some kind of impassioned plea here about needing to work together to further the crypto economy against the real enemy. Feel free to add one if that would help.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2015, 08:43:27 am by Cassius »
Logged
I head up content for BitScan, crypto business hub.

EvilDave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +341/-40
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1789
    • View Profile
    • NXT Foundation
Re: nxt fork
« Reply #29 on: August 26, 2015, 08:33:47 am »

We came here with the best of intentions to collaborate and maybe hire a few people to work on open source. All we've got back is nerd rage.

I don't like it. I definitely don't like being threatened, so challenge accepted on your empty threat lawsuit. Using it here: github.com/awcoding/nxt

Go ahead and sue. I'm really curious to know how long it will take you to figure out that you are wrong. If you don't get it now, maybe you won't even get it when your lawyer tells you that you are wrong. Anyhow, I expect I will be coming back in about 6 months and have a good long laugh at you. In my Google Calendar.

Finding it hard to see the nerd rage, tbh.

I'd like to see some reasons as to why this mysterious project has to fork Nxt in the first place, and why the concepts of working with the Nxt community in a licensing arrangement (or just releasing under GPL) are so completely unacceptable to the OP.

Still, this topic has definitely set one of the fastest idea-to-lawsuit times I've ever seen..... ;D
Logged
Nulli Dei, nulli Reges, solum NXT
NXT Donations: NXT-BNZB-9V8M-XRPW-3S3WD
We will ride eternal, shiny and chrome!

Damelon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +792/-54
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2314
    • View Profile
    • Nxt Inside
Re: nxt fork
« Reply #30 on: August 26, 2015, 09:24:27 am »

Mike,

To be blunt, you started out nicely enough, asking questions and requesting our reasons for the GPL and your wish to return to MIT.

Then, when it was explained by the very people doing the work they have their reasons for not going MIT anymore and keeping GPL, you started with immediately asking people to fork into an MIT.

That doesn't look very well intentioned, and certainly isn't polite to say the least.

Once it was clear you wouldn't get it the way you wanted it, you decided to for all intents and purposes to shut down meaningful communications by adding sentences like

Quote
That's too bad. Well, if any developers are keen to contribute to an MIT codebase, we'd love to hear from you.

Do you have strong cryptography skills? Interest in working on an MIT licensed fork of nxt? We'd love to hear from you. PM me and let me know a bit about your work.

Then when people start to get more forceful about the issue, you resort to calling it "nerd rage" and basically using semantics to say what amounts to "no, I am right and you lot are idiots".

I can fully understand you don't like it. I can understand that it makes it more difficult to do what you want to do. Fair enough.
But the provocation here is yours, not ours. The people who code Nxt have every right to put it under any license they like.

Your "best intentions" seem to be predicated on your terms be met. Starting out with "Hi, we want to work with you on the condition our terms are met" is rarely if ever a basis for negotiation.

We came here with the best of intentions to collaborate and maybe hire a few people to work on open source. All we've got back is nerd rage.

I don't like it. I definitely don't like being threatened, so challenge accepted on your empty threat lawsuit. Using it here: github.com/awcoding/nxt

Go ahead and sue. I'm really curious to know how long it will take you to figure out that you are wrong. If you don't get it now, maybe you won't even get it when your lawyer tells you that you are wrong. Anyhow, I expect I will be coming back in about 6 months and have a good long laugh at you. In my Google Calendar.
Logged
Member of the Nxt Foundation | Donations: NXT-D6K7-MLY6-98FM-FLL5T
Join Nxt Slack! https://nxtchat.herokuapp.com/
Founder of Blockchain Workspace | Personal Site & Blog

nexTry

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Friendly nxt fork
« Reply #31 on: August 26, 2015, 09:43:05 am »

Sorry to say this, but for me  this makes you look like plastering the code with easter eggs. In the past  a software author and some others had a discussion about his  software which originally had a GPL-License acompanied with the code. Later the source code archive were removed to push hardware sales.
NRS is not a hardware driver that can be closed. Your example is incorrect. If Jean-Luc ever declares NRS as close-source project, it'll be his last day as a project leader. [NRS would fork and he'd be the only man contributing, everyone else would go to the fork.]

It was not a device driver. it was a MCU firmware for a hardwaregadget. Due to the fact that there are not so much people that make PCBs or wirewrap single units the source code wasn't so widespread so while there was some intrest in the community it wasn't so easy to fork.

Quote
While this  discussion may look academic for nxt and in fact i hope there are no developers that wan't to go the route  via a court i see a lot of problem with other orivate repositories, namely for a lot of device drivers etc. that in some cases  never made it into the  offical release.
Once again - device driver is a bad analogy. Look at NRS like an OpenOffice. Oracle decided to make changes that angried people -> OpenOffice forked into LibreOffice -> nobody uses OpenOffice anymore, everyone migrated to LibreOffice.
I can give you countless examples of projects that forked because of bad management. It's impossible to close NRS without loosing users.

Sure you can find alot of examples. But in this case the  source vanished into the nowhere and some pins were swapped  for improved user experience. If you  don't like the device driver example, what about some plugins for eclipse, gimp, etc?
Or some quite mature software vor VLSI design, Ecad, scintific software  that were published under various  license and vanished for (i do not wan't to speculate) reasons. I am not intrested i geting some mail some day. Sorrym can you read, the package nave states beta so it's not a offical resease and there are  companies that are selling software basing on the 'offical' but not open souced licensed software.

Quote
What if someone make a derivative work of NXT (honouring the Implications of the GPL) but  publishing the software only in a private branch and when you want to incorporate the changes into NXT you get a 'Sorry Jean Luc, yes ist copyrigthed by the GPL, yes you can read it, but no you can't  merge it because its not an offical signed release'?
Can you elaborate? I don't understand the problem you're trying to describe. GPL is compatible with GPL no matter which repository it comes from.
[/quote]
The point is, Jean Luc states, sorry, you can't go after the commit where   the checkout contains (maybe i did not check the specific snapshot ) the old MIT License file but no GPL is  that the software is copyrighted under the MIT License.

So my point is, what i some other software author  that originally published his code under a MIT licence and later when the code  comes  back from a few people who  preserved  the code. Sorry to say, you can't use this code, while there is indeed a MIT license attached it was not an offical release. There are a lot of projects where the developer don't publish offical signed releases.

I hope you se better what i mean.

While i understand the the reasons for GPLing the software i don't like such problems. When i get a software that contains a license file i expect it to be  valid. If the code   comes from public readable repository or a publicly downloadable softwarearchiv does not really matter. Code got by decompiling or hacking a private  server is  excluded of course.
Logged

rtrtcrypto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +37/-5
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: Friendly nxt fork
« Reply #32 on: August 26, 2015, 10:04:04 am »

Really didn't like corleone's tone in this entire thread. Totally hostile take over of other people's work and abdurd passive-aggressive stance from 1st post (intentions were totally obvious).

Start a legal fund if law suit progresses, I (and others) will be happy to support part of the legal fees. NXT community will not stand for this.

Best,
R
Logged

bcdev

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +162/-22
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
    • View Profile
Re: Friendly nxt fork
« Reply #33 on: August 26, 2015, 10:32:08 am »

The point is, Jean Luc states, sorry, you can't go after the commit where   the checkout contains (maybe i did not check the specific snapshot ) the old MIT License file but no GPL is  that the software is copyrighted under the MIT License.

So my point is, what i some other software author  that originally published his code under a MIT licence and later when the code  comes  back from a few people who  preserved  the code. Sorry to say, you can't use this code, while there is indeed a MIT license attached it was not an offical release. There are a lot of projects where the developer don't publish offical signed releases.

I hope you se better what i mean.

While i understand the the reasons for GPLing the software i don't like such problems. When i get a software that contains a license file i expect it to be  valid. If the code   comes from public readable repository or a publicly downloadable softwarearchiv does not really matter. Code got by decompiling or hacking a private  server is  excluded of course.
I understand your confusion.
You're talking about "checkouts". NRS is released in "releases" that are under one license [previously MIT, now GPL]. https://nxtforum.org/nrs-releases/
Git repository is made public only after a release is made.
I agree with core devs that the license of the "release" it's what matters, not what LICENSE file exists in a checkout for a particular commit.
If every commit was public [code is released first into the public repository like with 99% of open-source projects] the LICENSE file of the checkout would have a priority. NXT is in the other 1% which do a release first, thus LICENSE file of a particular release has priority over a checkout.

IMO forking NRS just because you don't like the license is stupid. You will have to reimplement every single feature NRS will have. Even if you'd fork from 8cd423eee [like you originally wanted to] you'd waste huge amounts of time just to stay current now and in the future. It's not worth the effort, especially since you can always negotiate for a private license.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2015, 10:34:27 am by bcdev »
Logged

VanBreuk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +362/-19
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2772
    • View Profile
Re: nxt fork
« Reply #34 on: August 26, 2015, 11:26:54 am »

I fail to understand why mikecorleone would name this thread "friendly" considering how it evolved. Maybe he needed to make it appear as "friendly" so the Nxt devs would appear as the "non-friendly" part of the thread.

passive-aggressive

Yes, this is quite apt.

Logged
GPG Fingerprint: B020 D1C1 F289 3B2C 3577  9EAD 455D D175 5913 C7F1

abctc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +148/-13
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1396
    • View Profile
Re: Friendly nxt fork
« Reply #35 on: August 26, 2015, 12:35:07 pm »

Start a legal fund if law suit progresses, I (and others) will be happy to support part of the legal fees. NXT community will not stand for this.
+ 1440
Logged
Welcome to the Nxt generation of crypto!   Magis quam Moneta (More than a Coin)
"Do not worry, it is an attack" (c) Jean-Luc

nexTry

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Friendly nxt fork
« Reply #36 on: August 26, 2015, 05:30:30 pm »

I understand your confusion.
You're talking about "checkouts". NRS is released in "releases" that are under one license [previously MIT, now GPL]. https://nxtforum.org/nrs-releases/
Git repository is made public only after a release is made.
I agree with core devs that the license of the "release" it's what matters, not what LICENSE file exists in a checkout for a particular commit.
If every commit was public [code is released first into the public repository like with 99% of open-source projects] the LICENSE file of the checkout would have a priority. NXT is in the other 1% which do a release first, thus LICENSE file of a particular release has priority over a checkout.

I am confused,indeed. And to be honest,  NXT is the first  project where i learn about such a policy, and my concerns remain about the legal status of such a policy. But i am not intrested to go the court route at all.

I think the  'negotiate a private license' solution should be fine.

Logged

Frodo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Karma: +0/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Friendly nxt fork
« Reply #37 on: August 26, 2015, 07:37:03 pm »

I have never been more disappointed in the NXT community as I am after reading this thread.

It is long known that the core developers are hostile towards clones.  The legal threat made earlier brings it to a whole new level.

I am not a lawyer, and the following should be construed as my opinion on these matters, and should not be taken as legal advice.  Please contact your legal professional for specific advice.

So far, only one person in this thread has shown an understanding of copyright and contract law: the OP.  Mind you, these are topics which are covered in any 'Basic Law' course.  Of particular importance is answering the question of 'when' copyright is applied to a work.

In almost all jurisdictions, copyright is automatically granted to the author at the time of creation (or "fixed in a tangible form of expression", if you like).  Committing code to a private repository should suffice here (perhaps even earlier, but is unimportant to this discussion).  By default, this copyright grants little privileges to anyone except the author.  But, when committed to a repository in which a license is attached, that license is immediately applied to the work.  It matters not if the repository is private, nor does it matter when or if it is made public. Also, the subsequent packaging and signing of binary releases has no effect on the copyright of the original source code.  Mike has chosen a suitable commit from which to fork as MIT

In short, the developers made an error when transitioning to GPL (by continuing to copyright intermediate work under the MIT license), and has little legal ground to threaten the OP in this way.  Put the pitchforks away, fellas.

Mike, I wish you the best in your endeavors.  I apologize for the toxicity here.

(As a side mention, it would benefit the NXT community to read Mike's posts again and heed the warnings about dual-licensing and the insufficient contract which aims to misuse the work of previous contributors).


Logged

Damelon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +792/-54
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2314
    • View Profile
    • Nxt Inside
Re: Friendly nxt fork
« Reply #38 on: August 26, 2015, 08:10:46 pm »

I just love how this is changing from

"We would like to use your work, but don't like your licensing model. Can you change it?"

to

"You are legally wrong in the way you licensed your software. You made a mistake, so we now take the right to use it as we want to interpret it."

Who is creating the toxicity here?

I feel that the coders have every right to be pissed off when people take a legalese attitude to what in principle is about the way they want their software to be distributed.

The legalese part smells very much like a front to be able to reverse engineer a probable cause to use MIT, even when it is very clear (and stated unequivocally by the copyright holders) how they wish their software to be distributed.

I am frankly more than a little disgusted by the fact that there have appeared three new accounts in this thread that try to push their MIT agenda by adhering to the LETTER of the law (which is very much an interpretation, however it is presented) instead of the SPIRIT, which means that the developers have stated very clearly they wish the software to be under GPL.

This is threatening to get bogged down in a discussion about particulars instead of generalities.

Frodo, your last post is a mess, to be honest. On the one hand you quote copyright law, stating that copyright is granted at the moment of creation. Then you turn it around that by making (in your assesment) a mistake in the licensing, they forfeit rights on this. This completely misrepresents how copyright and licensing work.

You are confusing copyright per se with licensing form.

Copyright are the rights that the creator HAS.
Licensing are the rights the creator GRANTS.


Note the difference. Licensing flows FROM copyright.
http://www.majordojo.com/2010/07/license-vs-copyright.php

Logged
Member of the Nxt Foundation | Donations: NXT-D6K7-MLY6-98FM-FLL5T
Join Nxt Slack! https://nxtchat.herokuapp.com/
Founder of Blockchain Workspace | Personal Site & Blog

rtrtcrypto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +37/-5
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 279
    • View Profile
Re: Friendly nxt fork
« Reply #39 on: August 26, 2015, 08:18:31 pm »

mikecorleone, glad to see you are consistent with your username themes.

Which movie character will you choose next?! Looking forward!

 ;)


I have never been more disappointed in the NXT community as I am after reading this thread.

It is long known that the core developers are hostile towards clones.  The legal threat made earlier brings it to a whole new level.

I am not a lawyer, and the following should be construed as my opinion on these matters, and should not be taken as legal advice.  Please contact your legal professional for specific advice.

So far, only one person in this thread has shown an understanding of copyright and contract law: the OP.  Mind you, these are topics which are covered in any 'Basic Law' course.  Of particular importance is answering the question of 'when' copyright is applied to a work.

In almost all jurisdictions, copyright is automatically granted to the author at the time of creation (or "fixed in a tangible form of expression", if you like).  Committing code to a private repository should suffice here (perhaps even earlier, but is unimportant to this discussion).  By default, this copyright grants little privileges to anyone except the author.  But, when committed to a repository in which a license is attached, that license is immediately applied to the work.  It matters not if the repository is private, nor does it matter when or if it is made public. Also, the subsequent packaging and signing of binary releases has no effect on the copyright of the original source code.  Mike has chosen a suitable commit from which to fork as MIT

In short, the developers made an error when transitioning to GPL (by continuing to copyright intermediate work under the MIT license), and has little legal ground to threaten the OP in this way.  Put the pitchforks away, fellas.

Mike, I wish you the best in your endeavors.  I apologize for the toxicity here.

(As a side mention, it would benefit the NXT community to read Mike's posts again and heed the warnings about dual-licensing and the insufficient contract which aims to misuse the work of previous contributors).
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All
 

elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
assembly
assembly