2 ms·
> Simply removing the copyright is a violation of the MIT license. Did they remove the copyright? All the source files I checked in Spegel don't have a copyrig
by palata 2y ago
> Simply removing the copyright is a violation of the MIT license.
Did they remove the copyright? All the source files I checked in Spegel don't have a copyright header. To me it feels like it's the author's mistake.
- evantbyrne 2y agoForks don't get to pretend that licenses don't exist just because they don't like the placement in the source.
- palata 2y agoYou don't understand my point (probably my mistake). If the file starts with: // <MIT header> // Copyright evantbyrne Then a fork should read: // <MIT header> // Copyright evantbyrne // Copyright Microsoft But if you did not add "// Copyright evantbyrne", the MIT license doesn't say that Microsoft should add it. I don't even know if it's legal for Microsoft to do it. You have to add your own copyright to the files where you own a copyright.
- evantbyrne 2y agoI understood and this is incorrect. > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. It needs to appear somewhere regardless of where exactly the license was placed in the source repository.
- palata 2y agoRight. So they should just copy this licence somewhere in a subfolder, saying "parts of this project derive from Spegel, with licence: <copy of the licence>"? They can still do it now, and probably they should (someone can even open a PR?).
- MyOutfitIsVague 2y agoThey have to say what code where is copied from the other project. It can't just be "parts", because that obscures the authorship. You can open that PR, if you care to identify which parts were copied and label them all. Really, the people who copied the code in the first place should have done so, and really should have known better, given they work for a massive corporation that claims to love open source and has had a massive interest in copyright over the past three decades. It's not just a "mistake", it's unacceptable for a professional programmer for a corporation to take code from a FOSS project without crediting it. That's a level of incompetence bordering on malpractice for a profession that deals so heavily with copyright on a day to day basis. edit: According to the MIT license, the notice itself just needs to accompany the code, so I was wrong about the specificity needed. Still, it does mean that any further forks would be unable to remove the license without personally identifying if all the original code was removed. It's always better to identify what code belongs to who.
- palata 2y ago> It can't just be "parts", because that obscures the authorship. Wait. When I contribute to an open source project without signing a CLA, I keep the copyright over the lines I contributed. Still, I don't add a comment above every single line saying that it belongs to me. Nobody would accept such a contribution. Even for fairly big patches. Are you saying that every single open source project that does not make contributors sign a CLA is doing it wrong?
- MyOutfitIsVague 2y agoNope, I made a mistake there. It's good practice, when copying code from software with a different license, to call out what code is copied from where, but such a thing is not mandatory.
- palata 2y agoSo... what would be the minimal, right thing to do here?
- tick_tock_tick 2y agoCorrect the code is still under the license they just don't have to add it to every file if it's not there.