I looked at their codebase and it seems the other party was doing. I'm seeing a pattern here where either this is not really a copyright problem but possibly a marketing stunt if its not, then it may well be an emotional spiral or lash-out for one person extending another's open source logic even with attribution clearly given. If so then this is not healthy for the open-source community.
Also is it legal to start with MIT and change to Apache midway? The laws around opensource licensing are so tricky and cutthroat at this point.
Also does anyone know what this Intentional License is from the other party, I have never seen it before. It seems that's what their main package is while the other packages are Apache. If its custom is it even legal to just create a new OSS License out of nothing?
There's too much gray area with OSS especially when it comes to legalities we almost need a standard.
Also is it legal to start with MIT and change to Apache midway? The laws around opensource licensing are so tricky and cutthroat at this point.
Also does anyone know what this Intentional License is from the other party, I have never seen it before. It seems that's what their main package is while the other packages are Apache. If its custom is it even legal to just create a new OSS License out of nothing?
There's too much gray area with OSS especially when it comes to legalities we almost need a standard.