Post

> we decided that the codebase is not a derivative work that would require carrying forward the GPL license and have decided to release the code under the MIT instead. oh someone wants to get sued.

I don't even think git being licensed more permissively (eg, MPL2 or something) would be a bad thing! It would be a net positive for humanity probably. Just, like. Using AI to rewrite and relicense one of the single most-used pieces of GPLed software is actually a declaration of licensing war.

And git probably has contributors with standing to sue who might have the ideological motive to do so. Also, like. How are you not a derived work? What made you come to that conclusion? Or do you just really WANT to not be?

Since people aren't connecting the dots on this I feel like I need to point out that the author of this post is GitButler's CEO and the same Scott Chacon whose name is proudly displayed as a co-author at git-scm.com/book. He was also a Github cofounder.

that's weird. i knew scott but more importantly i knew the 3 guys who founded github and he wasn't one of them.

i was 95% certain that was wrong (and the citation for it on wikipedia is gone) found this — he was one of the first employees. maybe they promoted him later. but to me that's not a cofounder.

I mean sure, but people get awarded the title of cofounder without actually being present at the company's founding and are then referred to as such. Regardless of whether it should be done (I'm not a fan), it does happen and might be the explanation. Or it's just wrong. That's very likely too.