hoopyKt

6 ms·

1.
by hoopyKt 7mo ago
You're ignoring the part where the maintainer demonstrated that version 7 isn't a relicense of LGPL work but a complete rewrite based on public domain research and algorithms. That stack overflow article is irrelevant to this situ
2.
by hoopyKt 7mo ago
Possibly they're "hell bent" on using the existing name because they've been using that name for their project in their github repository with their pip package that they've been supporting for a decade now. If they
3.
by hoopyKt 7mo ago
There is a certain irony here as well that this project was considered for actual community ownership by being added to the standard library, but it was decided that it was ineligible due to the LGPL license. Had this been MIT from the st
4.
by hoopyKt 7mo ago
I think your metaphor is flawed though, firstly because we're not talking about the maintainer being a caretaker, for all intents and purposes they are the owner of chardet, just not a subset of the IP within, those are two separate
5.
by hoopyKt 7mo ago
A distinction should be made between ownership of the code and its copyright and ownership of the repository and associated distribution channels. As far as I know, there's no precedent to state that owning the former means ownership o
6.
by hoopyKt 7mo ago
Further, while the copyright of the original code and its derivatives are still owned by the original author does that hold true to the rights to the name and package namespace? Supposing this were indisputably a clean room implementation i