4 ms·
Still, it needs to retain the copyright notice and credit the original author. What the plagiarist in this case did is use it as if it was Public Domain.
by jancborchardt 14y ago
Still, it needs to retain the copyright notice and credit the original author. What the plagiarist in this case did is use it as if it was Public Domain.
- zcvosdfdgj 14y agoYou do not know that. He never downloaded it. So he does not know if the license and credit were changed.
- icebraining 14y agoWhat makes you say he didn't? Have you downloaded the app? Because OP says he hasn't, so he can't possibly know. BSD doesn't force you to put the copyright notice and credit in the app description page.
- jancborchardt 14y agoThey did the same for Matt Gemmell: https://twitter.com/mattgemmell/status/235302914258792448 https://twitter.com/mattgemmell/status/235302914258792448
- fdr 14y agoGiven the audience that'd buy this software, I doubt that just dropping in a LICENSE file -- which is all that is needed -- will materially impact this borderline scam. Unlike the 4-clause BSD, which was not tractable, the modern 3-clause I'm quite sure the author used does not say in any way "must display this copyright in the most obvious place." If the repackager simply includes the file, I believe he will meet BSD provisions, per the letter of the contract. I see two ways to look at this: * If one really doesn't like things like this to be within the grounds of the copyright, don't use BSD. Use GPL. * On the other hand, what odds are there that the GPL will be reliably enforced against such small fry actors? Maybe you are best choosing a license based on what makes the most sense for the project's advancement anyway.