@drewdevault@fosstodon.org Tripped up on #4 due to the license change - that would only apply to their copy/modifications, right? Also, "claim to be the authoritative source" probably doesn't mean "claim to be the original author".
@jcmrva @drewdevault MIT is even okay with changing the licence to a proprietary one, it just requires attribution, as far as I'm aware
@sanfierro @jcmrva @drewdevault Technically, only the copyright holder can *change* the license, but a downstream developer can apply a more restrictive license to their own work, which will result in the modified work as a whole being effectively covered by the more restrictive license.
But, for example, if the more restrictive license was the GPL, users who receive the software could still extract and use the MIT-license parts under the terms of the MIT license.