No, I am saying the maintainers are saying they're mad that people are using AI to extend Asahi, and in response they are switching to GPL.

Normally you do something in response that would solve your perceived problem. In this case, it seems to be a random unrelated action they've taken to the problem they identified.

▲

rtpg 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You are pattern matching on the "AI" part and reacting to it, but I think you should re-read the original post. The main thing seems to be some people taking this code and then reusing it without attribution (and, incidentally, trying to use AI to obfuscate this fact)

▲

trombuance 4 hours ago | parent [-]

There never needed to be attribution according to their own license, which they picked without any outside influence. Where exactly is the issue?

	▲	rtpg 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I guess they picked a license that didn’t require attribution and then decided “actually this sucks” and are changing their judgement downstream of that Sometimes some people change their mind.

▲

nar001 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't think they were "extending" Asahi, they were trying to hijack the project by making a new fork unrelated to their work, that's not the same, GPLv2 would force people to give attribution and not able to at least take the code without doing anything else for it, as you'd need to also have your own forks open source, that's more restrictive than MIT

	▲	habitue 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, but aside from the trademark issue (the fork cant call itself Asahi), GPL is 100% on board with letting you fork. It's on the tin, part of the freedoms it guarantees.