No right to relicense this project (github.com)

Article summary

The original author of the chardet project, Mark Pilgrim, claims that the current maintainers do not have the right to relicense the project under a different license, as the new version is not a clean-room implementation and therefore still falls under the original LGPL license. The maintainers argue that their new version is a complete rewrite and thus not bound by the original license. The dispute centers around the question of whether the new version is a derivative work or a completely new implementation. The original author insists that the project be reverted to its original license.

Main themes

• LGPL licensing
• Derivative works
• Clean-room implementation
• Copyright law
• Open-source governance
• License relicensing

What commenters say

• The LGPL license requires that any modified version of the code be released under the same license, and the new version's claim of being a complete rewrite is irrelevant.
• A clean-room implementation is not necessary to avoid copyright infringement, but it can be used as a defense in court.
• The fact that the new version has the same public API as the original does not necessarily mean it is a derivative work, but the similarity in implementation details could be evidence of copyright infringement.
• If the new version is found to be a derivative work, the original author's copyright would still apply, and the maintainers would not have the right to relicense it without permission.
• The burden of proof lies with the accuser to establish that the new version is a derivative work, but if it is found to be so, the maintainers would need to prove that their usage is transformative enough to qualify as fair use.
• The concept of a clean-room implementation is not a requirement in law, but rather a way to pre-empt accusations of copyright infringement in court.
• The new version's maintainers may have the right to create a new, original work based on their own ideas, but any code that is derivative of the original would still be bound by the original license.
• The LGPL license is designed to ensure that the right to modify and distribute the code is passed on to others in perpetuity, and changing the license would undermine this principle.