> Most software engineers innately know that taking an open-source project, stripping the authorship, putting it your own site and running ads next to it is une

> Most software engineers innately know that taking an open-source project, stripping the authorship, putting it your own site and running ads next to it is unethical, regardless of the licensing only "stripping the authorship" makes it unethical, all the other things are totally fine and approved in the open source world. Make an entire copy of debian software repository? People will thank you for another "mirror". create a webpage which hosts existing docs (like man pages or software package documentation)? Totally fine as long as the docs are not modified (so any AUTHOR section is intact) create another "how to get started with ZZZ" website, which is three quarter official docs? Ok as long as license allows remixing. Many do. start a business which took over many project's discussion forums and centralized information in one place? And then the said business gets millions from ads and kills many previous forums? People love this, some even say that Stack Overflow is "the best thing that happened to programming" and so on... so for people used to open source model, news aggregators are totally fine, as long as content is not modified and there is a clear attribution. The GP comment mentions "iframes", so both of those would have been true - it's not like you can blank out author name from a third-party iframe. Yes, the journalism is different and the open source rules do not apply to it. But hopefully you can see where does this "information wants to be free" mindset is coming from.