7 ms·

Ask HN: Someone removing your MIT LICENSE in their fork?

• speedgoose 4y ago
  Wait a reasonable delay, like one month. If they don’t comply, it’s time for a DMCA request to GitHub. https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-policies/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-polic...
• josephcsible 4y ago
  If they aren't following the license you released your work under, then they're infringing your copyright, and you could send a DMCA to GitHub to get their repository taken down.
• bluesign 4y ago
  they seem to have your license there https://github.com/VivumLab/VivumLab/blob/dev/LICENSING/HomeLabOS%20License https://github.com/VivumLab/VivumLab/blob/dev/LICENSING/Home... ? Their license is also seems like GPL, which is compatible with MIT afaik.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • KyleSanderson 4y ago
    Yeah, looks OK.
  • johndough 4y ago
    But which license applies to which files?
    • NickBusey 4y ago
      Yea seems strange. They have copywritten my copywritten files?
      • ollien 4y ago
        IANAL, but check out this law.stackexchange thread. It pertains to the BSD license, but it's very similar https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/4149/can-one-take-bsd-licensed-code-and-distribute-it-under-gpl https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/4149/can-one-take-bs...
        • NickBusey 4y ago
          And the 2nd answer seems to say that no, you can't just recopyright something. https://law.stackexchange.com/a/4150 https://law.stackexchange.com/a/4150
          • ollien 4y ago
            Some answers seem to disagree. I, as a non-lawyer, think as long as the git commits make it clear who authored what, it's a non-issue.
          • david_allison 4y ago
            See the Software Freedom Law Center's guide: https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html#x1-40002.2 https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-colla... There are multiple examples of how to recopyright MIT-style source under the GPL.
      • bluesign 4y ago
        copyright notice just means they have at least partial copyright. It doesn't mean they have copyright to all code.
    • _v7gu 4y ago
      The whole "conditions" part of the MIT license is this: "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." No requirements for you to keep the licensing constant for unmodified files. If you fork ViviumLab, you're subject to GPL (plus the sublicenses?, but GPL covers that anyway if you don't remove the licenses from your source code); if you fork HomeLab, you're subject to MIT. They don't need to change anything for you to be subject to GPL.
  • ollien 4y ago
    Yeah - the Github issue seems to take issue with the naming of the file, but the MIT license makes no such requirement. I don't think any license requires the file name, it's just a suggestion.
    • bluesign 4y ago
      yeah than it would not be possible to include 2 MIT etc licensed code in a project.