There's no particular problem to my thinking of starting with the GPL code and rewriting it until the original is gone. There's no particular problem with doing this among multiple OpenBSD developers in collaberation in a source repository.
The problem is that the source repository is public, and so was essentially made available to the public in an ongoing fashion. This is where the license is being trammaled upon, and is also a clear and present risk to the public in that they are at risk for acquiring and incorporating tainted code under false pretenses.
In this situation, I cannot criticize the choice of bringing the problem to the attention of the public immediately. In the usual GPL situations, the problem is that binaries are being provided without source, or that code is being linked in a manner which is not license-compatable. Neither of these situations will lead to further legal problem if they are addressed at a measured and diplomatic pace in private. This particular problem _did_ represent the real possibility of the creation of additional legal problems for any number of third parties in a present manner.
Thus the communication of the problem in the manner it was communicated was reasonable. There was no error.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds