3 ms·
That's true. And, in my understanding, what OO did, falls exactly in paragraph b and d. The license doesn't describe what is the "Appropriate Legal Notices" and
by X-Ryl669 6mo ago
That's true. And, in my understanding, what OO did, falls exactly in paragraph b and d. The license doesn't describe what is the "Appropriate Legal Notices" and OO provided a description for it: its logo and its trademark.
- kube-system 6mo agoNo, logos and trademarks are neither "legal notices" nor "author attributions". It's simply not what those words mean. A "legal notice" is some sort of legally relevant document. An "author attribution" is a plaintext recognition of the original copyright holder. If you look at the repo, it looks like the did fail to include author attributions, as far as I can see. The source files need to say they were originally written by OO. That's what author attribution means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(copyright) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(copyright) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notice