4 ms·
As a compiled binary (i.e. your library was compiled into their binary), or as source code? Given we're talking C/C++, I doubt they added it as actual source co
by charlesdm 10y ago
As a compiled binary (i.e. your library was compiled into their binary), or as source code? Given we're talking C/C++, I doubt they added it as actual source code.
If they are not distributing source code ("3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution."), it frankly does not matter if they disclose whether they use your library or not. And if they were distributing source code, the notice would just have to stay visible in the distributed source file. An average user wouldn't be able to find that anyway.
A compiled binary != distributing source code.
As a library user under the license you used, there is no legal obligation to include the actual license in (the documentation of) your app. If you wanted that, you should have included that in the license header of your source code. Sorry to break it to you, but they're probably not doing anything wrong here.
- dsp1234 10y agoI doubt they added it as actual source code. https://dl.discordapp.net/apps/linux/0.0.1/discord-0.0.1.tar.gz https://dl.discordapp.net/apps/linux/0.0.1/discord-0.0.1.tar... expand that out, then navigate to: resources/bootstrap/ expand out: discord_rpc.zip note the presence of uws.js which is the source code for this library. Thus this is a distribution of this library as source, not binary.
- charlesdm 10y agoThen you can contact them and request they add the license header again, in this JS file. But is it worth pursuing this? Chances are no one will ever actually see it, though.
- dsp1234 10y agoThen you can Just to be clear, I'm not the original author, and thus have no ability to enforce copyrights for this library. Just someone who doesn't like the easy stuff of license/attribution being thrown away.