4 ms·
I mean, the author understands the MIT license, and is upset that the terms of that license aren't being honored. If I were them, I would absolutely feel better
by RIMR 1y ago
I mean, the author understands the MIT license, and is upset that the terms of that license aren't being honored. If I were them, I would absolutely feel better getting credit where credit is due.
If they wanted a less permissive license, they could have used one.
- WD-42 1y agoDid you read the article? The missing attribution is a tiny part of it. That’s not really what the author is complaining about.
- istjohn 1y ago> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that". https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- hiatus 1y agoThat seems to be exactly the thing they are complaining about: > Spegel was published with an MIT license. Software released under an MIT license allows for forking and modifications, without any requirement to contribute these changes back. I default to using the MIT license as it is simple and permissive. The license does not allow removing the original license and purport that the code was created by someone else. It looks as if large parts of the project were copied directly from Spegel without any mention of the original source. Can you share what you think the author is really complaining about?