3 ms·

I 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 requir

I 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 ago
Just a guess: perhaps GitHub prefers the credit? It depends who controls the Atom name I'd think.
- capableweb 4y ago
  Shouldn'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 ago
    I 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 ago
The 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 ago
  The LICENSE.md file in the root of the Pulsar repo is indeed available in the application under Help > View License.

xpe 4y ago

Just a guess: perhaps GitHub prefers the credit? It depends who controls the Atom name I'd think.

capableweb 4y ago
Shouldn'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 ago
  I 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 ago

The 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 ago
The LICENSE.md file in the root of the Pulsar repo is indeed available in the application under Help > View License.