Maybe I'm reading wrong here, but what's the implication of the clean room re-implementations? Someone else is cloning with a changed license, but if I'm still on the GPL licensed tool, how am I "not protected"?

▲

darkwater 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

1. Company A develops Project One as GPLv3

2. BigCo bus Company A

3a. usually here BigCo should continue to develop Project One as GPLv3, or stop working on it and the community would fork and it and continue working on it as GPLv3

3b. BigCo does a "clean-room" reimplementation of Project One and releases it under proprietary licence. Community can still fork the older version and work on it, but BigCo can continue to develop and sell their "original" version.

	▲	makapuf 10 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		2. BigCo owns ProjectOne now 3a. Bigco is now free to release version N+1 as closed source only. 3b. Community can still fork the older version and work on it, but BigCo can continue to develop and sell their original version.
	▲	bloppe 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		As a real world example, Redis was both Company A and BigCo. Project One is now ValKey.

▲

eru 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There's basically no different between GPL and BSD in that case.