[cientifico]

The license was MIT until two months ago.

That gives anyone the right to get the source code of that commit and do whatever.

The article does not specified if the company is still using the code AFTER the license change.

The rest of the points are still valid.

[Leynos]

MIT places the following condition on the licencee if they wish to re-distribute the code:

> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Which the other party was not doing.

[nasusnavas]

I looked at their codebase and it seems the other party was doing. I'm seeing a pattern here where either this is not really a copyright problem but possibly a marketing stunt if its not, then it may well be an emotional spiral or lash-out for one person extending another's open source logic even with attribution clearly given. If so then this is not healthy for the open-source community.

Also is it legal to start with MIT and change to Apache midway? The laws around opensource licensing are so tricky and cutthroat at this point.

Also does anyone know what this Intentional License is from the other party, I have never seen it before. It seems that's what their main package is while the other packages are Apache. If its custom is it even legal to just create a new OSS License out of nothing?

There's too much gray area with OSS especially when it comes to legalities we almost need a standard.