5 ms·
This is the community attempt to continue / revive atom right? Interesting that atom doesn't really get mentioned in the docs anymore- hopefully a sign that it'
by benrutter 4y ago
This is the community attempt to continue / revive atom right? Interesting that atom doesn't really get mentioned in the docs anymore- hopefully a sign that it's finding its feet and direction as a project in its own right.
- capableweb 4y agoI don't know, seems a bit weird not to mention Atom at all. At least "This project was forked from Atom" or whatever. Besides it being nice, it's also a requirement of the Atom license, that the copyright and license notices are preserved. Seems the only mention of their heritage is "Original work copyright (c) 2011-2022 GitHub Inc." in the LICENSE file but again, no mention of Atom.
- xpe 4y agoJust a guess: perhaps GitHub prefers the credit? It depends who controls the Atom name I'd think.
- capableweb 4y agoShouldn't matter "who" prefers the credit, the project is a fork from Atom and should be mentioned as such. Right now, going to the website or the repository makes it seem like a brand new editor, which it is clearly not, but not so clear based on what information they willingly provide you with.
- xpe 4y agoI mostly agree. Still, project / owner names (as written in licenses) can change. So the entity in control makes the call, I would think.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- codetrotter 4y agoThe license in the original Atom repository https://github.com/atom/atom/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/atom/atom/blob/master/LICENSE.md has the following copyright notice: > Copyright (c) 2011-2022 GitHub Inc. IANAL but the terms of the MIT license says: > […] > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. > […] And they did preserve it all. https://github.com/pulsar-edit/pulsar/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/pulsar-edit/pulsar/blob/master/LICENSE.md So IMO, they are pretty much fulfilling the requirements of the MIT license it looks like. Depends on whether the copyright notice and license is also presented somewhere (such as under the About menu) in distributed copies of the modified program as well. But I have no interest in installing Pulsar just to see if they do that or not.
- Daeraxa 4y agoThe LICENSE.md file in the root of the Pulsar repo is indeed available in the application under Help > View License.
- i_am_proteus 4y agoFrom the about page of their web site (https://pulsar-edit.dev/about.html https://pulsar-edit.dev/about.html): "The team behind Pulsar is a community that came about naturally after the announcement of Atom's Sunset and decided that they needed to do something about it to keep their favorite editor alive. This is a true community-led project to modernize, update and improve the original Atom project into a contemporary, hackable and fully open editor."
- rwalle 4y agoI don't think that's enough. It's not mentioned in github repository README. I actually thought this is a brand new editor until someone pointed out this is a fork of Atom. I have browsed at least hundreds of open source repositories and this stands out as very strange.
- Daeraxa 4y agoWe have it in a bunch of places around the GH org (literally the first two lines on the org readme), docs and blog posts. In no way do we want to hide it but we also made a decision that we didn't want any trademark disputes from GitHub's lawyers from misusing their Atom trademark anywhere. We very much acknowledge the Atom legacy (including hosting the full original Atom flight manual before the website went down alongside the rebranded docs). Edit - We have updated the main repo readme with the info to hopefully address some of these concerns