2 ms·
bs claims i suppose reading this article. when you put a license in the root of the repo, you are saying "everything is covered by this license, unless otherwis
by 2Gkashmiri 3y ago
bs claims i suppose reading this article. when you put a license in the root of the repo, you are saying "everything is covered by this license, unless otherwise stated specifically".
i don't see a problem in that. Unless the other party is alleging that they have removed AGPL license only to put the whole project under AGPL license, uh
- Xylakant 3y agoAs I read the article the issue is not the license. The issue is (allegedly) stripping the copyright information. If you use code under any license you get a permission from the authors to use it under the given terms. The authors still retain the copyright and most licenses require you to retain the copyright information, some even to display a prominent notice. This is important if the project ever chooses to relicense - they can’t just change the license of code that they don’t have the copyright for. So, if you ever use code from someone else, track where it came from.