5 ms·
It looks like more of an ignorant / stupid mistake than anything else.
by pitaj 9y ago
It looks like more of an ignorant / stupid mistake than anything else.
- donatj 9y agoHanlon's razor is my favorite razor and the one I find most true in day to day life.
- kibwen 9y agoExcept that Hanlon crucially forgot to complete his aphorism: never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by apathy.
- AndrewKemendo 9y agoDisagree, the forked repo would have to intentionally delete the license data.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mioelnir 9y agoThen now is his moment to learn about open source licensing. Doesn't mean the infraction does not count or we should let it slide. As any license, even MIT with its few requirements must be enforced to be worth its bytes.
- rhapsodic 9y ago> It looks like more of an ignorant / stupid mistake than anything else. Yep. I feel sorry for the dude.
- SubiculumCode 9y agoAn ignorant person would ignore a license or just delete the license text. But he didn't just delete it, he replaced it.
- peatmoss 9y agoEh, charitably guessing here, I could imagine an intern being told something, "it's okay to use Open Source software, just make sure it's Apache license otherwise we have to get the legal team to review." And then an intern naively treating that as a directive, without the understanding that it was wrong. Hoping the intern learns lots, and that he isn't raked over the coals.
- apetresc 9y agoHe didn't delete it or replace it, it was never there. There's no code shared between this project and Gemstash, it simply `require`s Gemstash the way any Ruby project would depend on any other gem.
- whatsinaname22 9y agoDon't you have to be pretty ignorant though to strip out the old license and then just replace it with another one? I mean you have to consciously do it.
- jf 9y agoI'd be willing to believe that removal of a license file could be accidental. However, what is being discussed here is wholesale replacement of a license notice in multiple files, which is much harder for me to believe is a mistake made out of ignorance or stupidity.
- ProAm 9y agoDoesn't Google go after people for doing the same thing?
- jancsika 9y agoIgnorance would be misunderstanding or even misrepresenting the actual license with the wrong license. I maintain a FLOSS project that ships libraries with various FLOSS licenses, and it's within the realm of possibility that somewhere in there is a README that conflicts with the license at the top of a corresponding C source or header file. (Hypothetical example: README says gplv2 and the c file is 3-clause BSD.) But removing a copyright where condition #1 is a single sentence that tells you not to remove the copyright? And replacing it with a different license? That certainly isn't ignorance.