[jchw]

> I'm finding it hard to determine that actual harm has occurred here. [...]. But neither fail0verflow nor RTEMS seem to care about any of this.

? There isn't really any evidence that the original RTEMS developers are aware of this situation.

> You don't need permission to use open source code..

"Open source" on its own is just industry jargon. When you use open source code, you are copying it in accordance with an open source copyright license. The copyright license contains certain stipulations around how it is allowed to be used. For example, BSD licenses require that the copyright notice is included when using the code. IANAL but my understanding is if you omit this information even though your work is a derivative work of the original you're in violation of the copyright license.

> So there appears to be two double standards occurring at once.

You should really elaborate who is being held to what standards because I can't make sense of this.

[1970-01-01]

The point is that nobody is being held to anything. Who will make a case in court? There is nobody to enforce the law, and if there was someone, it can be easily corrected by including these license files. Therefore nothing is blocking either project.

[jchw]

> The point is that nobody is being held to anything. Who will make a case in court? There is nobody to enforce the law, [...]

Lawsuits are very expensive for all parties no matter what, there is clearly no intent to try to engage legal action. That has nothing to do with anything. They're trying to distance themselves from illicit behavior, including the behavior they already knew about and let slide in 2007.

(And I doubt it's being done for legal reasons, but distancing yourself from illicit behavior does matter; take a look at what happened with Citra. The case partially hinged on their responses to piracy.)

> It can be easily corrected by including these license files. Therefore nothing is blocking either project.

Tell that to the libogc developers who seem to only be interested in burying the problem rather than trying to rectify it in any way.

[1970-01-01]

These points don't seem to be an argument that harm has occurred.

[jchw]

What is harm? Does infringing someone's copyrights not count?

[1970-01-01]

No, it sometimes does not. The crux is that this is a somewhat novel GPL violation, and their knee-jerk reaction to freeze development is extreme. It's a weird story.

[jchw]

They just "froze" upstream development, but it was purely performative; there isn't actually active upstream development.

If you wanted to fork it and continue development you certainly could.