The historic commits might contain things unsuitable for relicensing.

Also, never before have I heard such an absurd claim as to what the purpose of open source is.

I think it is an interesting perspective. What would you say the purpose of open source is? If not purpose, you can call it an attractive property.

Let say you have the sources of an algorithm implementation, but they are unreadable because the variables are not named, you don't know the name of the algorithm getting implemented and so on. Of course this is a lot harder to understand than code which cites its references (like papers and so). Wouldn't this qualify as being able to "see how the the software evolved"? Granted, VCS history is only a small part of this, but I think it may help cause it would show what improvements were done, which shows the direction of the project, showing what's important. A large part of being a good programmer is knowing what NOT to do. If you see what others failed to do, don't you think that helps?

> What would you say the purpose of open source is?

The Open Source Initiative has this to say: "Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in."

Recognizing that "Free Software" and "Open Source" are terms for essentially the same thing originating from groups with slightly different goals, the FSF says this about Free Software: " Free software is about having control over the technology we use in our homes, schools and businesses, where computers work for our individual and communal benefit, not for proprietary software companies or governments who might seek to restrict and monitor us." [1]

Seeing the past history of a project before the point at which it was opened is somewhat related, but not necessary, to the motivation cited by the OSI, and not, as I see it, even related to the FSF motivation.

[0] http://opensource.org/about

[1] http://www.fsf.org/about/

> The whole point of open source is that you get to go back and see how the software evolved.

Its really not. Its a potential -- and perhaps significant -- side benefit of open source in some cases, but its certainly not the main motivation, much less the "whole point".

So, what about LibreOffice/OpenOffice when it was open-sourced from StarOffice?

Or Blender?

Are they worthless because you can't see how it originally got developed?