> Shitty is moving from the imported GPL baseline to an MIT-only codebase. It does not intend to retain the GPL as the final project license.

that's really something that cannot be done if you don't have the original right of the code. It's 100% derived work and thus has to preserve GPL license, even if you rewrite every single line.

▲

pg83 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I'll probably stick to the perspective expressed to me by the lawyer (I actually consulted on this topic), rather than the opinion of some random "GPL zealot" on the internet.

The procedure described has been done many times, is well described, and is quite feasible, albeit quite complex.

I think I can handle it!

And, in any case, anyone who wants to can sue me in a real court, not an online one.

	▲	pg83 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The procedure is quite simple in principle: each new contributor confirms their permission to use their code under two licenses—MIT and GPL3. After a while, the entire codebase becomes dual-licensed. At that point, I leave it as is and (tentatively) copy the MIT portion to another location. Yes, the derived work will still remain under the dual license, and therefore under the GPL3 as well, but no one can stop me from copying the MIT portion, which, by coincidence, will cover the entire project. This isn't relicensing; it's rewriting it under a dual license.
	▲	fwlr an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Hmm. Sounds like it follows the letter of the law (although much of it is LLM-generated, and there’s obviously quite a legal cloud surrounding that), but it does feel a bit against the spirit to me. Overall, I am quite satisfied with the name you’ve given it.