3 ms·
Yes. You take something you do not own (even down the tree). You have to check if you are allowed to. It does not matter if it is a small pet project or the Lin
by oaiey 5y ago
Yes. You take something you do not own (even down the tree). You have to check if you are allowed to. It does not matter if it is a small pet project or the Linux Kernel.
Sure you can ignore him and wait for him to lawyer up and make your life miserable. Considering that IT specialists which have capacity to contribute to open source are typically not poor or have idealogical interests, I would not take the bets.
Respect the wishes of the people you take code from.
License checking is like code coverage. If you are a professional you take care of it.
- concordDance 5y ago> You have to check if you are allowed to. It does not matter if it is a small pet project or the Linux Kernel. Actually it does matter and you don't have to. In practice pet projects are basically never going to be sued, it's simply not worth it. As a side note, a lot of techy people struggle to separate the law as written with the law as practiced. The ethics question is more interesting, but for something like this which is clearly satirical? No harm, no foul.
- oaiey 5y agoThe "pet project" was the dependency in my example which license would be violated. The contextual author does not care for sure. But generally it is an ethical problem like you said but also a practical one. Once you stack enough pet (or should I say lpad) projects together something bigger comes out. And the liability is hidden three layers down the dependency tree.