On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Bruce Badger <bwbadger at gmail.com> wrote:
> On the Swazoo list, from which I have been excluded, Janko is asking
>  the question of whether Swazoo should be re licensed under the MIT
>  license rather than the LGPL.
>
>  Regardless of the outcome of this, the current status is that Swazoo
>  is under the LGPL.  Only new versions of Swazoo would be affected by
>  any "relicense" and only then if all code contributed by people who
>  were not included in the discussion were removed.  So far, the
>  discussion does not appear to include any of the other original
>  contributors to Swazoo.
>
>  Clearly, as I am excluded from the discussion there can be no question
>  of any of my code being subject to any "decisions" on the swazoo list.
>   The same would apply to any other contributor too.  Copyright to the
>  rescue.
>
>  You know, I do agree that there needs to be clarity in licensing.
>  With Swazoo, I thought we had that, since from day one it has been
>  under the LGPL which I thought was a pretty open license (I share
>  Paolo's view on that).  But this idea of grabbing other people code
>  and claiming that it is licensed as you please is not what I signed up
>  for. It looks like some kind of software mugging from where I sit.

Do you any links to the relevant discussion (especially the "day one"
part)?  Because while Janko's actions are certainly.... non-optimal,
he seems to indicate the exact opposite, i.e. that they didn't really
have a license, then you came and suggested it was LGPL and now claim
it conclusively is.  So from his description it sounds like an attempt
at forcing the software into LGPL simply by "injecting" your own LGPL
code into it.  Which would, of course, be every bit as reprehensible
as the "software mugging" you describe.