[mogoh]

> How I turned my open-source project into a business

> I also changed the license from LGPL to a commercial license.

OK ...

[StevenXC]

They didn't make a business using an open source project; they turned their open source project into a monetized non open source project.

[zepolen]

That's not how that works:

> Derivatives works (including modifications or anything statically linked to the library) can only be redistributed under LGPL

[jowea]

LGPL does not bind the author(s) of the software in this way. And since there was a CLA the other authors authorized the main dev to change the license.

[josebama]

Thank you! This is the piece of information I was missing. I kept wondering as I read the article whether that was a LGPL license breach. Thanks for clarifying

[throwaway11460]

As the owner of the intellectual property you're the one licensing to others. License is a kind of contract. You're not under any license yourself, it's yours.

If you accepted PRs without a contributor agreement transferring the ownership, you might be infringing on their IP (licensed to you and others).

[jacooper]

Did you read the article? He forced a CLA on every commit