| ▲ | kimixa 6 hours ago | |
It seems they're pretty directly admitting to referring to the LGPL library while implementing theirs under a different license. I wonder if they'll have no issues with people directly reading their code while happening to implement the same functionality with a closed license? Or a GPL-style one? I'm surprised they admitted to it - it's hardly "Clean Room".... | ||
| ▲ | messe an hour ago | parent [-] | |
> I'm surprised they admitted to it - it's hardly "Clean Room".... "Clean Room" RE isn't always legally required. | ||