4 ms·
> The act of stripping git history and attribution while forking is itself malicious, Well, okay, the forking could have been more politely, but author is a bi
by hjek 5y ago
> The act of stripping git history and attribution while forking is itself malicious,
Well, okay, the forking could have been more politely, but author is a bit fast to pull the pirate card. It's a free/libre fork of a free/libre project after all.
> nanocolors implementation and API are the same as Colorette. You essentially pirated my work.[0]
[0]: https://twitter.com/jorgebucaran/status/1441728642711572486 https://twitter.com/jorgebucaran/status/1441728642711572486
- neoromantique 5y agofree/libre does not equate to unlicensed. Fork has violated the license of original by stripping the attribution and history.
- pritambaral 5y agofree/libre != Do what you want Copying and redistributing software without a license IS the definition of software piracy. The current version appears to be MIT licensed. It is safe to assume that the fork was made under the same license. Given this assumption, and given that the MIT license requires copyright information to be preserved, stripping attribution is a license violation. The claim of piracy is valid.