an angry techbro story: one Michael D. Mintz forked an LGPL-2.1 codebase and unilaterally changed the license to MIT.
Now he's very, very angry because people pointed out that this is license terms violation, and asked him to either use LGPL-2.1 or ask the original authors to relicense.
the dude's some fucking automation lead at household name companies, for fuck's sake. he really should have known better.
EDIT#1: it seems that the dude published at least one three other pieces of software with changed license, without crediting original authors and after having removed change history. congratulations for being probably one of the first people who managed to break the onerous requirements of the fucking BSD 3 clause license.
EDIT#2: ouch.
EDIT#3: more of the same plus a proposal to unilaterally dual-license LGPL code using MIT license. this is not going well.
EDIT#4: more of the same, third-party components edition.
EDIT#5: the issues asking for clarifications of the licensing terms opened by @pbarker in SeleniumBase repositories have been deleted by the organization owner. this_is_fine.gif.
EDIT#6: there's a reluctant, forced progress, mostly in the licensing area: the license of pynose (the nose fork) has been fixed, the AUTHORS file restored. the pdbp* licensing problems seem to be progressing too, and whoever did sit on the dude and managed to reach through, did a good job.
there are still outstanding issues with the embedded third-party software, and mdmintz still doesn't seem to understand why he should credit the prior authors and contributors instead of the self-aggrandizing approach he prefers.