5 ms·
Leaving off the attribution makes it stolen. They stole credit for the code, in violation of its license.
by skywhopper 2y ago
Leaving off the attribution makes it stolen. They stole credit for the code, in violation of its license.
- Zambyte 2y agoNo it doesn't. It makes it copied without authorization. Stolen means the original owner does not have access which is not the case[0]. This idea that copying is theft was propaganda invented by the MPA[1], and we ought to stop parroting it, even when it's Microsoft doing the unauthorized copying. [0] https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Wouldn%27t_Steal_a_Car https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Wouldn%27t_Steal_a_Car
- bitblender 2y agoPlagiarism is theft because it does take something away from the original author (attribution). Plagiarism and piracy are different concepts. Making a copy and forking the code is not what they did wrong, that part was authorized. Deleting the author's name and pretending it was their original work is the issue.
- bigstrat2003 2y agoThe idea that piracy is theft was not invented by the MPAA. I arrived at that conclusion myself, and indeed most people I've interacted with find it to be pretty reasonable. It's only ever been a minority of giga-nerds who try to claim that "stealing" cannot cover situations involving a non-scarce resource.
- sublimefire 2y agoDoes it not need to be in each file for it to properly propagate to another source?