4 ms·
It does, with really minimal conditions (keep the license text and copyrights intact). I do not understand what the problem is. Zen seems to be a hard fork that
by mobinmob 7y ago
It does, with really minimal conditions (keep the license text and copyrights intact).
I do not understand what the problem is. Zen seems to be a hard fork that uses the zig code and sub-licenses it. That may be unfortunate, but it seems perfectly legal.
- ksec 7y agoNot only that, Zen were one of the Top Contributors and Top Sponsors before the fork. Not only is it legal, normal, and also morally correct. I just cant see the problem.
- stock_toaster 7y agoI think the expectation was the part of the MIT license which says: > keep the license text and copyrights intact It sounds like the Zen project removed/moved license text itself. Is it ok to fork a project and rename a LICENSE file to ACKNOWLEDGMENTS and then add your own LICENSE file? Or does the MIT imply that you must retain the original license text in the LICENSE file? IANAL so I have no clue as to the legality of that aspect in particular, but it sure /seems/ a bit unsavory, even if it may be legally ok.
- mobinmob 7y agoThe text of the MIT licence specifies that: "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." So, yes they can rename and move the license file. The ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.md file includes all other licenses for code.