> Why are so many people (see sibling below: "Perhaps legally, in this case, they're owed nothing") just rolling with the suggestion that this is a grey moral i

> Why are so many people (see sibling below: "Perhaps legally, in this case, they're owed nothing") just rolling with the suggestion that this is a grey moral issue and not a legal one? I mean, I dedicated an entire paragraph above that comment to pointing out moral possible legal problems, and used "perhaps" as an explicit indicator of uncertainty and doubt. The moral issue isn't particularly grey. The legal one... There are various attributions for "Mozilla Contributors". Does that technically suffice under either the license terms or in juristictions which recognize authors rights? (What juristiction(s) apply - hosting provider, Mozilla's headquarters, or perhaps the original authors?) Do they perhaps more explicitly attribute the original authors elsewhere? Certainly stripping names from an explicit copyright header would almost certainly be a license violation, but does flattening VCS history in the manner also count as one? Did CC licensing terms apply at the time of previous CMS conversions? Were there perhaps contributor agreements and/or clickwrap licensing agreements previously which would've made this legal? Are there more buried attributions which might technically meet the burden of attribution while still being done poorly enough to feel slighted? Perhaps in some juristictions but not in others? Can you answer all that with enough certainty as to assert that you "have any idea what you're talking about"? > What is it about Mozilla that attracts this sort of thing? Both sides offering takes that reveal that neither has any idea what they're talking about is far from unique to threads involving Mozilla. I dare say it's not even unique to the internet.