3 ms·

This seems to be a completely normal fork. This is not the first time that happens to open source software, and is an important part of the open source ecosyste

by andix 5y ago

This seems to be a completely normal fork. This is not the first time that happens to open source software, and is an important part of the open source ecosystem. Off course forks are not a nice thing for the original authors, but a lot of good things happened because of forks. Libreoffice, Xorg, and many more. The original package was MIT licensed, so this is totally legal and okay to do so If there is a good reason for this fork, is another question. But if the forked library is now getting more traction than the original one, it is maybe doing something better. PS: the fork is also MIT licensed, so the original author can totally backport the improvements into his original project.

rasz 5y ago
Completely normal fork starts by admitting its a Fork in the first place.
- andix 5y ago
  This was missed in the first place, and was a violation of the license. But this was quickly fixed. I don’t want to defend the „thief“ ai, but I think the original author is being a bit too dramatic. If you don’t like people „stealing“ your code, chose a more permissive license. But then also less people will use it.
  - tylermenezes 5y ago
    It wasn't fixed until he went public. As a popular maintainer ai knows how to fork while preserving history. Not to mention that he originally claimed the API was merely "inspired" by colorette.
    - andix 5y ago
      I know. Maybe it was bad intent, maybe it was just missed. But it was fixed quickly. Now it is fixed. That’s the important part.
      - ghoward 5y ago
        I don't think it could have been "just missed" when the license and his history were stripped from the code.
  - rasz 5y ago
    All fixed indeed https://github.com/babel/babel/pull/13783#issuecomment-927258580 https://github.com/babel/babel/pull/13783#issuecomment-92725...
listless 5y ago
The other way to look at this is that this guy’s whole Twitter thread is not in the spirit of open source. It’s not about you. It’s about improving life for everyone by freely sharing code. If you want it to be about you, don’t pick MIT from that drop down.
- andix 5y ago
  Exactly.
- syockit 5y ago
  Just a reminder: MIT license ≠ public domain.
Otek 5y ago
He should credit author at least. That would be more with the spirit of OpenSource. Not using licences as a defence that "it's legally okay". It is, many things are legally okay, but still a shitty thing to do.
- zwerdlds 5y ago
  It's NOT legally OK. The license permits use of the copyrighted work with certain terms, attribution being one. That term was violated, just as when a big company takes a low level gpl driver and uses it without releasing the source. AI could have rightly been subject to a DMCA takedown, which is a legal action, for example.
shakna 5y ago
> The original package was MIT licensed, so this is totally legal and okay to do so The MIT license requires attribution. The attribution was removed until the author was called out publicly, so... No. This was not totally legal and okay to do so.

by andix 5y ago

rasz 5y ago

Completely normal fork starts by admitting its a Fork in the first place.

andix 5y ago
This was missed in the first place, and was a violation of the license. But this was quickly fixed. I don’t want to defend the „thief“ ai, but I think the original author is being a bit too dramatic. If you don’t like people „stealing“ your code, chose a more permissive license. But then also less people will use it.
- tylermenezes 5y ago
  It wasn't fixed until he went public. As a popular maintainer ai knows how to fork while preserving history. Not to mention that he originally claimed the API was merely "inspired" by colorette.
  - andix 5y ago
    I know. Maybe it was bad intent, maybe it was just missed. But it was fixed quickly. Now it is fixed. That’s the important part.
    - ghoward 5y ago
      I don't think it could have been "just missed" when the license and his history were stripped from the code.
- rasz 5y ago
  All fixed indeed https://github.com/babel/babel/pull/13783#issuecomment-927258580 https://github.com/babel/babel/pull/13783#issuecomment-92725...

listless 5y ago

The other way to look at this is that this guy’s whole Twitter thread is not in the spirit of open source. It’s not about you. It’s about improving life for everyone by freely sharing code. If you want it to be about you, don’t pick MIT from that drop down.

andix 5y ago
Exactly.
syockit 5y ago
Just a reminder: MIT license ≠ public domain.

Otek 5y ago

He should credit author at least. That would be more with the spirit of OpenSource. Not using licences as a defence that "it's legally okay". It is, many things are legally okay, but still a shitty thing to do.

zwerdlds 5y ago
It's NOT legally OK. The license permits use of the copyrighted work with certain terms, attribution being one. That term was violated, just as when a big company takes a low level gpl driver and uses it without releasing the source. AI could have rightly been subject to a DMCA takedown, which is a legal action, for example.

shakna 5y ago

> The original package was MIT licensed, so this is totally legal and okay to do so The MIT license requires attribution. The attribution was removed until the author was called out publicly, so... No. This was not totally legal and okay to do so.