3 ms·
No it's not. Because freeuse, is explicitly declared in the LICENSE, MIT. So no, it's not even close to be plagiarism.
by rafaelturk 5y ago
No it's not. Because freeuse, is explicitly declared in the LICENSE, MIT. So no, it's not even close to be plagiarism.
- masswerk 5y agoA is the unchanged inclusion of the license statement including the attribution. Sorry. You are not free to strip a MIT license. (Even, if this would not be the explicitly stated in the license, everything adhering to any kind of publication would still apply. E.g., pretending that the work of others having originated genuinely from you would be considered as plagiarism.) Edit: To make this clear, the question of license violation has nothing to do with the question of plagiarism. These are on entirely different levels. One is about use, the other is about authorship. (As it happens, the MIT license has also something to say about any note of authorship included in the license statement.)
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]