Capstan wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:32 pm
"hard to know if such code was/wasn't influenced by GPL code", that's silly. You could say that about any code anywhere. I think it's just a weak excuse for NIH.
At the time this was a very
legitimate concern. Loboris had claimed his repo was covered under the MIT license yet there were clear uses of GPL
, violating the MIT claim.
Since he removed the GPL code
this is probably
now usable. There is a worry that it could be argued that viral nature of the GPL means that the whole repository
became GPL at the point where he included any
GPL code but I think this is specious. I believe that he had just not performed due diligence in checking licenses and inadvertently included it - removing it seems satisfactory to me. But IANAL.
As far as I'm aware
the port of any Lobo features would be considered. However, as covered in other posts, it's not trivial as Lobo was able to take some liberties since his fork was only
for ESP32. Further, while many people have requested Lobo features, few (none?) have stepped forward to submit PR's.
I have been trying to extract some features, most recently RMT, but found that it was easier to re-think the design and re-implement. It wasn't NIH, it was simply that the design I had in mind was very different to that found in the Lobo codebase.
Anyway, I just thought a little historical context might be worthwhile sharing...