4 ms·

https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel/blob/main/LICENSE The license doesn't have to be in each file. It's

https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel/blob/main/LICENSE The license doesn't have to be in each file. It's a license for the software. A software is a thing. > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files > ... > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

palata 2y ago
Right. So Microsoft should just have a copy of that LICENSE somewhere in their codebase?
- rovr138 2y ago
  No, not somewhere. That’s the license. If they reuse it, they have to use that license.
  - palata 2y ago
    This is wrong. Peerd can use whatever licence they want that is compatible with the MIT licence for the code they imported from Spegel.
- SpaceNugget 2y ago
  Why are you doing this? Posting in a way that suggests purposely confuses/obfuscates the difference between the general concept of a copyright notice and the practice of putting a copyright comment at the top of every file in a project, then immediately get corrected, then post basically the same intentional misunderstanding on someone else's comment elsewhere in the thread. You: > I don't think Microsoft removed the copyright notice. I think that the original author did not add one... Direct quote that from the file containing and requiring the copyright notice in derivative works that was not included in Microsoft's fork. This was also included in a comment which you have replied to: > The above _copyright notice_ and this permission notice...
  - palata 2y ago
    You have the timing wrong, I did not do that in the order you suggest :-). I thought people were saying that Microsoft removed the copyright headers and replaced them with them, which they did not. Microsoft replaced the LICENSE for the whole repository with their own, and thanked Spegel in their README. While this is some kind of attribution, it's not enough for the MIT LICENSE. I don't know exactly what would be good enough, I think having a copy of the Spegel LICENSE file somewhere in their repo would be enough (though possibly less visible than the line in the README, to be fair). My overall point is that it feels like people are complaining a lot about what seems to be an honest mistake. And not just that: the way Peerd did it is arguably giving more visibility to Spegel than if they had just copied the licence somewhere in their repo. Peerd could possible just copy the licence somewhere less visible and remove the link from their README.
    - SpaceNugget 2y ago
      The file titled LICENSE contains a copyright notice. That's what a license file _is_ in the context of software a LICENSE to use someone's COPYRIGHTed software. You must abide by the terms under which you are granted the license, otherwise you don't have access via the license, and are thus violating the copyright. They aren't two unrelated concepts. Anything else is noise, they violated the license. They blatantly copied copyrighted works. They can't "oopsie" that away or claim it as a mistake, honest or not. You simply are not allowed to do that. Suggesting that they "could possible just copy the licence somewhere less visible and remove the link from their README." is wrong. They MUST include the copyright notice and the rest of the license. They don't get to choose whether or not to respect the license. And they don't need to remove the link, That's got nothing to do with the copyright issues. No one at Microsoft thought that call out was somehow the legally required attribution clearly explained in the MIT license.
      - palata 2y ago
        > Suggesting that they "could possible just copy the licence somewhere less visible and remove the link from their README." is wrong. They MUST include the copyright notice and the rest of the license. You do realise that those two statements are not incompatible? If they include the licence somewhere less visible and remove the link from their README, they are still including the copyright notice and the rest of the licence. The MIT licence does NOT say that you MUST have it at the root of your repository in a file called LICENSE. It does not say that you must clearly identify the parts of the code for which you don't own the copyright or anything like this. You can read it here: https://opensource.org/license/mit https://opensource.org/license/mit
CrimsonRain 2y ago
the "fork" peerd is also MIT licensed and contains the same license file unless I'm mistaken. So what does Microsoft need to do to be in compliance? I'm not being facetious here. Genuinely curious/want to learn.
- joshuaissac 2y ago
  They removed the attribution to the original authors and replaced it with their own name. So the copyright notice is not preserved. They could comply with the licence by adding back that attribution.

palata 2y ago

Right. So Microsoft should just have a copy of that LICENSE somewhere in their codebase?

rovr138 2y ago
No, not somewhere. That’s the license. If they reuse it, they have to use that license.
- palata 2y ago
  This is wrong. Peerd can use whatever licence they want that is compatible with the MIT licence for the code they imported from Spegel.
SpaceNugget 2y ago
Why are you doing this? Posting in a way that suggests purposely confuses/obfuscates the difference between the general concept of a copyright notice and the practice of putting a copyright comment at the top of every file in a project, then immediately get corrected, then post basically the same intentional misunderstanding on someone else's comment elsewhere in the thread. You: > I don't think Microsoft removed the copyright notice. I think that the original author did not add one... Direct quote that from the file containing and requiring the copyright notice in derivative works that was not included in Microsoft's fork. This was also included in a comment which you have replied to: > The above _copyright notice_ and this permission notice...
- palata 2y ago
  You have the timing wrong, I did not do that in the order you suggest :-). I thought people were saying that Microsoft removed the copyright headers and replaced them with them, which they did not. Microsoft replaced the LICENSE for the whole repository with their own, and thanked Spegel in their README. While this is some kind of attribution, it's not enough for the MIT LICENSE. I don't know exactly what would be good enough, I think having a copy of the Spegel LICENSE file somewhere in their repo would be enough (though possibly less visible than the line in the README, to be fair). My overall point is that it feels like people are complaining a lot about what seems to be an honest mistake. And not just that: the way Peerd did it is arguably giving more visibility to Spegel than if they had just copied the licence somewhere in their repo. Peerd could possible just copy the licence somewhere less visible and remove the link from their README.
  - SpaceNugget 2y ago
    The file titled LICENSE contains a copyright notice. That's what a license file _is_ in the context of software a LICENSE to use someone's COPYRIGHTed software. You must abide by the terms under which you are granted the license, otherwise you don't have access via the license, and are thus violating the copyright. They aren't two unrelated concepts. Anything else is noise, they violated the license. They blatantly copied copyrighted works. They can't "oopsie" that away or claim it as a mistake, honest or not. You simply are not allowed to do that. Suggesting that they "could possible just copy the licence somewhere less visible and remove the link from their README." is wrong. They MUST include the copyright notice and the rest of the license. They don't get to choose whether or not to respect the license. And they don't need to remove the link, That's got nothing to do with the copyright issues. No one at Microsoft thought that call out was somehow the legally required attribution clearly explained in the MIT license.
    - palata 2y ago
      > Suggesting that they "could possible just copy the licence somewhere less visible and remove the link from their README." is wrong. They MUST include the copyright notice and the rest of the license. You do realise that those two statements are not incompatible? If they include the licence somewhere less visible and remove the link from their README, they are still including the copyright notice and the rest of the licence. The MIT licence does NOT say that you MUST have it at the root of your repository in a file called LICENSE. It does not say that you must clearly identify the parts of the code for which you don't own the copyright or anything like this. You can read it here: https://opensource.org/license/mit https://opensource.org/license/mit

CrimsonRain 2y ago

the "fork" peerd is also MIT licensed and contains the same license file unless I'm mistaken. So what does Microsoft need to do to be in compliance? I'm not being facetious here. Genuinely curious/want to learn.

joshuaissac 2y ago
They removed the attribution to the original authors and replaced it with their own name. So the copyright notice is not preserved. They could comply with the licence by adding back that attribution.