3 ms·
You're removing the license in that case, which means downstream users aren't informed that they are direct licensees. It's dishonest. Additionally, the Berne
by torstenvl 6y ago
You're removing the license in that case, which means downstream users aren't informed that they are direct licensees. It's dishonest.
Additionally, the Berne Convention recognizes a "moral right" to claim authorship.
https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/283698 https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/283698
- systemvoltage 6y agoThis is what I was looking for, thanks for the insight. The way I understand this - if I don't put my authorship, it becomes a liability for the users of my code since they have no traceability of where the code came from. Am I reading this right?
- torstenvl 6y agoYeah downstream users wouldn't know that the license text came from someone who can actually license it. The combination of the copyright and permission notice says "This is mine AND you can do these things with it if you want." Claiming ownership by itself does not result in it being open source. Saying you're giving permissions, but without claiming the right to be able to do so, also does not result in it being open source.