Post #3089535

2026-03-04 14:43 UTC

@jzb@hachyderm.io @Foxboron@chaos.social @joshbressers@infosec.exchange Maintainers can't just change the license without asking each and every contributor for their approval. In open source projects, contributors usually keep their individual copyright, except when the project has them sign additional terms, or assign copyright to the project or something.

Replies (2)

@jzb@hachyderm.io 2026-03-04 14:48

@scy@chaos.social @Foxboron@chaos.social @joshbressers@infosec.exchange I mean, they _can_ if they rewrite the code in question. So here - *if* one of the LGPL code contributors is offended by the license change they could look at the new codebase and see if the new code resembles their contribution. Then they'd have to challenge it. But projects have been relicensed without seeking permission from every contributor and/or by removing contributions if they cannot get approval. I'm not aware of any cases where a contributor has successfully challenged such - but there's always a first time.

Open ##3089536
@Foxboron@chaos.social 2026-03-04 14:50

@scy@chaos.social @jzb@hachyderm.io @joshbressers@infosec.exchange Depends. If you have a permissively licensed project, you can change the source to GPL by just using a poison pill approach. This is what Forgejo did as an example. https://forgejo.org/2024-08-gpl/ This works as the MIT license terms are met. The other way would not work.

Open ##3089537