5 ms·
Plagiarism is a moral wrong. But copyright infringement is a legal wrong (a civil liability). Is what they're doing infringing on a copyrighted work? Or does
by wyldfire 10mo ago
Plagiarism is a moral wrong.
But copyright infringement is a legal wrong (a civil liability).
Is what they're doing infringing on a copyrighted work? Or does it fail to uphold license terms? Many open source licenses have some amount of attribution as a requirement, so that'd be something to consider.
- bjt 10mo agoIt's addressed in the post. MIT license. Zigbook is not honoring the attribution requirement. A PR to change that was closed and obfuscated.
- _zagj 10mo ago> Zigbook is not honoring the attribution requirement It's crazy how many people treat MIT as if it were public domain.
- adrian17 10mo agoThis probably depends on country, but AFAIK in most of europe, even in public domain, the „you can’t pass another’s work as your own” part of copyright is still active and doesn’t expire.
- poly2it 10mo agoThis piques my interest, what is the legally required recognition of a derivative's parent work? Must I be able to list dependencies, or should I be able to verify whether a parent work is included in mine? What if my work is a second derivative of a work which I am unaware of, because the work in between improperly didn't recognise its parent? Am I legally responsible to investigate such cases?
- projektfu 10mo agoSomething like, "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, by Jane Austen and Seth Grahame-Smith" is probably sufficient.
- Zambyte 10mo agoI genuinely believe more people violate permissive licenses than copyleft license. I have no data to back this up, but just look at how much people focused on if LLMs were violating the GPL by reproducing code covered by the GPL without reproducing the license. If LLMs violate the GPL, they violate all licenses besides ones that are effectively public domain.
- lenkite 10mo agoAI is actually beginning to encourage "restricted source", public-only-gets-binary debates to simply avoid such legal issues. Write a snail-mail letter to get the real sources. Repositories are private with a small well-vetted list of contributors. Also avoid slop-PR headaches that away.
- femiagbabiaka 10mo agoIf you were licensing MIT, ostensibly it’s not the copying you care about, just the attribution. There is always the option to turn off prs, or even distribute code without using github.
- mtndew4brkfst 10mo agoGitHub has never allowed public repos to disable PRs in particular. There's no setting for that.
- femiagbabiaka 10mo agoIt's not directly possible, no, but with branch protection rules and this Github action it is trivial to set up: https://github.com/dessant/repo-lockdown https://github.com/dessant/repo-lockdown
- tliltocatl 10mo agoSorry, this sounds like the absolutely worst idea ever. The way to kill open source as such. Sloppy PRs will end when the idiot HRs release there is no value in them. Plagiarism isn't really anything new and AI doesn't really change much there. But adding friction to examining source is a sure way to make no one care to contribute.
- bigfishrunning 10mo agoHonest question, what are "HR"s? I only know that acronym for "Human Resources" and I don't understand how that has anything to do with code contribution
- claudiug 10mo agonot so much to AI companies :)