4 ms·

> How exactly has Google violated this license? If they are not including the attribution specifically defined in the MIT license, then they are violating it.

mankash666 9y ago
I doubt they violated anything. Most big companies have a legal approval process in place for this exact kind of accusation. Remember, non compliance can quickly devolve into a law suit, it's easier for them to have a process and comply than not
viraptor 9y ago
MIT applies to the source code. Unless they reused exactly the same code, that doesn't apply.
- brandonjm 9y ago
  Does it? I wasn't aware of that. Nowhere does it specify that just the source code is protected by it, it refers only to 'Software' which includes relevant documentation and I assume, the compiled version of the software. If I included a compiled version of an MIT licensed library in an application I was under the impression that I would need to include that copyright alongside my own as I could be distributing, selling or sub-licensing the library (all of which are explicitly covered by MIT). Regardless, nowhere in the MIT license does it specify that the concept cannot be replicated by someone else using entirely new code. By making it open source he left himself open to a larger company redeveloping the idea and making money off of it.
  - viraptor 9y ago
    Yeah, I wasn't precise. Software in whatever form it's applicable in that case, not just source code itself. But my point was what you say - the license didn't cover the implemented idea.
    - mankash666 9y ago
      "the license didn't cover the implemented idea." What does that even mean? Software==ideas in code/boost form.
      - viraptor 9y ago
        It means that if you implement Foo and give it whatever license, I can implement something that works exactly like Foo, call it Bar, and release it under whatever other license I want. Patents cover ideas, licences cover actual implementation. That's why ReactOS and Windows are both legal under different licenses, even though they try to implement the same thing.

mankash666 9y ago

I doubt they violated anything. Most big companies have a legal approval process in place for this exact kind of accusation. Remember, non compliance can quickly devolve into a law suit, it's easier for them to have a process and comply than not

viraptor 9y ago

MIT applies to the source code. Unless they reused exactly the same code, that doesn't apply.

brandonjm 9y ago
Does it? I wasn't aware of that. Nowhere does it specify that just the source code is protected by it, it refers only to 'Software' which includes relevant documentation and I assume, the compiled version of the software. If I included a compiled version of an MIT licensed library in an application I was under the impression that I would need to include that copyright alongside my own as I could be distributing, selling or sub-licensing the library (all of which are explicitly covered by MIT). Regardless, nowhere in the MIT license does it specify that the concept cannot be replicated by someone else using entirely new code. By making it open source he left himself open to a larger company redeveloping the idea and making money off of it.
- viraptor 9y ago
  Yeah, I wasn't precise. Software in whatever form it's applicable in that case, not just source code itself. But my point was what you say - the license didn't cover the implemented idea.
  - mankash666 9y ago
    "the license didn't cover the implemented idea." What does that even mean? Software==ideas in code/boost form.
    - viraptor 9y ago
      It means that if you implement Foo and give it whatever license, I can implement something that works exactly like Foo, call it Bar, and release it under whatever other license I want. Patents cover ideas, licences cover actual implementation. That's why ReactOS and Windows are both legal under different licenses, even though they try to implement the same thing.