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.

Huh. I thought he was a cofounder since he's listed as one on wikipedia. So either that's wrong or it's one of those late-stage cofounder deals?

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.