I'm not very experienced with version control. I was working

Move it to a new repo. More reliable security. Unclutters the repo from old code on retired branches. Much better to restart when you've got a bunk master. Plus your colleague won't have access anymore.

>>370946
Right, thanks. Should I rename the project then? The original is licensed GPLv3.

>>370946
Surely you then lose all your history, and can no-longer blame, bisect, etc.?

The whole point of DVCS is that there is no "master" repository and your fork is just as valid as the one you forked it from, no?

>>370951
There's potential trademark issues if you just call it "new foobar", "foobar-new", "foobar-ng", "nextfoo", etc. GPL3 is explicitly not a trademark license, and your rights to use the name derive from nominative use, i.e. if you compile and ship Firefox, the thing you're shipping *is* Firefox. I mention Firefox because Debian and MF fell out for years over whether or not Debian's code was Firefox or not, and for years Debian shipped "Iceweasel".

It's annoying as fuck to search for a dictionary word, because the search engine can't tell which pages are talking about your projects and which pages are talking about real, for example, sea anemones.

So if you pick a name that doesn't fall into either of these traps, you should be fine.

>>370956
Turns out there was a misleading header in a source file and it's actually under the MIT license, which I think should make things a lot easier.

I'm just playing it safe like you suggested anyways, though. Thanks again anon.

>>370975
Some versions of the MIT license have a "no endorsement" paragraph which in some circumstances can be read as forbidding you from using the name. So playing it safe is definitely a good idea.

>>370975
Also note that the MIT license explicitly permits relicensing, so you need to be sure about your "misleading header". If someone has relicensed the code as GPL3, and you incorporate it, you can't then relicense it back to MIT, even if the original code is available as MIT. If there's development in the project that's derived from the GPLed file, you're also infringing the GPL by swapping in the original code and declaring the whole project MIT. "derived from" is an incredibly wooly term, but say the originally-MIT file contains a structure used throughout the project, and then it gets GPL-licensed, and then someone changes the structure to a newer, more-efficient one, and changes the rest of the project to use that structure, well now the project is probably "derived from" the GPLed file and even if you remove that file, put in the MITed original, and modify it to use the new structure, then you're probably still GPL.

I use "probably" a lot, because the law is fuzzy and probabilistic and subjective, and I don't want you to think you're getting legal advice in the legal meaning of the term "legal advice".

tl;dr: be absolutely certain you're allowed to do it before you change something from GPL to MIT.

>>370985
Ah no worries, I'm going the other way around and making everything GPL.

It doesn't really matter too much desu, it's a small project and this will most likely never be relevant. Still, better safe than sorry.