4 ms·

It's not theft. The MIT license, which your project is released under, allows exactly what they did. The MIT license does require attribution, but doesn't dic

It's not theft. The MIT license, which your project is released under, allows exactly what they did. The MIT license does require attribution, but doesn't dictate where that attribution appears. Have you checked their repo for attribution? (Edit: It's humorous that the other project is named Parrot, since Parrots are known for copying sounds, and in fact the verb "parrot" means "to imitate.")

mtmail 5y ago
I can't see any attribution, first checkin message is " created a basic language!" with 409 new files in the repository. The author also changed the license to GPL which I think a MIT license doesn't allow.
- WalterGR 5y ago
  If there's no attribution, the only thing you can do is ask them nicely for it. (Unless you have money to litigate the license violation. But since the chance of you proving damages is non-existent, the best outcome you could hope for is the other project adding an attribution.) The author also changed the license to GPL which I think a MIT license doesn't allow. The MIT license allows that. In fact, the MIT license lets the code be used in entirely closed-source, commercial products that sell for millions of dollars. All that's required of users of the code is the attribution. The license is short and readable. https://github.com/marcobambini/gravity/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/marcobambini/gravity/blob/master/LICENSE
  - mtmail 5y ago
    (I'm not the affected author) You're right, the github license page contains the explanation "Licensed works, modifications, and larger works may be distributed under different terms" so changing the license is possible. So what remains is attribution. The Parrot author could add a single sentence "based on X" somewhere. One could question the ethical aspects but it would probably fulfill the attribution requirement.
    - WalterGR 5y ago
      The Parrot author could add a single sentence "based on X" somewhere. Not quite sufficient, but close. From the license: "...subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." One could question the ethical aspects Something like taking an MIT-based project and just rebranding it - or basically just rebranding it - sure. It does put a bad taste in one's mouth. And that does seem to be what the other project did. (...So far. Maybe they intend to go a different way with the language, and we just happen to see it at this primordial state because it's being developed in public. Who knows.)
      - verdverm 5y ago
        Looks like they have been implementing several long time open issues on OP's project. This is one of the reasons OSS is great.
verdverm 5y ago
They had named it density before renaming it parrot

mtmail 5y ago

I can't see any attribution, first checkin message is " created a basic language!" with 409 new files in the repository. The author also changed the license to GPL which I think a MIT license doesn't allow.

WalterGR 5y ago
If there's no attribution, the only thing you can do is ask them nicely for it. (Unless you have money to litigate the license violation. But since the chance of you proving damages is non-existent, the best outcome you could hope for is the other project adding an attribution.) The author also changed the license to GPL which I think a MIT license doesn't allow. The MIT license allows that. In fact, the MIT license lets the code be used in entirely closed-source, commercial products that sell for millions of dollars. All that's required of users of the code is the attribution. The license is short and readable. https://github.com/marcobambini/gravity/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/marcobambini/gravity/blob/master/LICENSE
- mtmail 5y ago
  (I'm not the affected author) You're right, the github license page contains the explanation "Licensed works, modifications, and larger works may be distributed under different terms" so changing the license is possible. So what remains is attribution. The Parrot author could add a single sentence "based on X" somewhere. One could question the ethical aspects but it would probably fulfill the attribution requirement.
  - WalterGR 5y ago
    The Parrot author could add a single sentence "based on X" somewhere. Not quite sufficient, but close. From the license: "...subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." One could question the ethical aspects Something like taking an MIT-based project and just rebranding it - or basically just rebranding it - sure. It does put a bad taste in one's mouth. And that does seem to be what the other project did. (...So far. Maybe they intend to go a different way with the language, and we just happen to see it at this primordial state because it's being developed in public. Who knows.)
    - verdverm 5y ago
      Looks like they have been implementing several long time open issues on OP's project. This is one of the reasons OSS is great.

verdverm 5y ago

They had named it density before renaming it parrot