3 ms·
I wish the legal arguments (the fact that the original project was under the MIT license - that's right, the original author has no rights to draw consequences
by Otek 5y ago
I wish the legal arguments (the fact that the original project was under the MIT license - that's right, the original author has no rights to draw consequences from this rip-off) didn't blind everyone to the fact that "ai" behaved not ok. Not in the spirit of OpenSource. If he encountered problems with the library, why didn't he want to contact the author first and suggest changes to the original project? Why didn't he write that the project is a fork? Why is he now pushing his library into projects that use colorette? Seems like an unclean pursuit of some imaginary power, instead of a desire to develop free software.
- dralley 5y agoThe MIT license still requires attribution, so no this isn't ok.
- lordlic 5y agoThat doesn't conflict with anything they said.
- tessierashpool 5y agoit doesn't conflict with the overall sense of what they said. but it does conflict with this particular remark: "the original author has no rights to draw consequences from this rip-off" since the license requires attribution, this is false.
- iskin 5y agoI mentioned him in docs, COPYRIGHT and keep the origin history? I clearly explain the reasons of fork creation and the changes https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/wiki/Colorette-Changes https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/wiki/Colorette-Changes What “fork rules” did I violate?