[bryanlarsen]

The original git had a command line interface. It's widely assumed that using a GPL'd program in your program through the command line does not cause the GPL to "infect" your program.

OTOH, one of the major reasons for grit is to provide a library interface. If they kept it GPL, anything that used grit through the library interface would have to also become GPL.

This could be the "legitimate concern" you're asking for.

But the LGPL was also an option -- it addresses that arguably legitimate concern and keeps the spirit of the original license.

[cmrdporcupine]

I mean, yes, clearly, LGPL is the explicitly obvious answer here. And they rejected it.

[schacon]

Relicensing under any other license, including the LGPL, is exactly the same thing. Either the reimplementation copies protected expression, in which case it would be required to be GPL-2.0-only, or it does not, in which case we can choose the most fitting license.

If you believe that using an MIT license is not correct, then you defacto also believe that using an LGPL license is not correct.

[bryanlarsen]

The OP you're referring to made a distinction between legally and morally correct. Legally, you appear superficially correct, but I'm not a lawyer, and neither was the OP. Morally, the LGPL is correct.

Judges are human and will take into account good faith and attempts to maintain the spirit of the license. Choosing the LGPL signals a desire to maintain the spirit of the license. The MIT signals bad faith. Judges don't like that.